AM RTJ 03 1790; (July, 2003) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-03-1790; July 31, 2003
PABLO B. FRANCISCO, Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 26, Sta. Cruz, Laguna, Complainant, vs. HILARIO F. CORCUERA, Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 25, Biñan, Laguna, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Judge Pablo B. Francisco, while acting as Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 25, Biñan, Laguna, denied the land registration application of SCIENCE PARK of the Philippines, Inc. SCIENCE PARK filed a motion for new trial. While this motion was pending, respondent Judge Hilario F. Corcuera returned to his permanent station as the regular Presiding Judge of Br. 25, and complainant was relieved and transferred to an adjoining branch. Respondent Judge subsequently granted the motion for new trial and, after receiving evidence, rendered a decision confirming SCIENCE PARK’s title. Complainant filed this administrative case, alleging respondent violated Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 5-98 by resolving the motion, as the complainant, being the judge who penned the original decision, should have resolved it. Complainant also insinuated a conspiracy to harass him.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Hilario F. Corcuera committed an administrative violation by granting the motion for new trial and deciding the land registration case.
RULING
No, respondent Judge is exonerated. The Supreme Court clarified the application of Administrative Circular No. 5-98. The Circular provides that an acting or assisting judge who has tried a case and is transferred shall decide it, including related motions for reconsideration or new trial. However, if a new trial is granted, the presiding judge who assumes the branch shall preside over and decide the new trial. Here, complainant, as an acting judge, had denied the application. When respondent, the regular presiding judge, returned, he properly assumed jurisdiction. His grant of the motion for new trial was a judicial determination that reopened the case. Consequently, under the Circular’s explicit terms, he was the judge mandated to conduct the new trial and decide the case, which he did. His actions were in accordance with the rules and devoid of malice. Conversely, complainant Judge Francisco displayed improper conduct. He issued a contrary order denying the motion for new trial despite full knowledge of respondent’s prior grant, demonstrating obstinacy and a lack of professional restraint unbecoming of a judge. Therefore, the complaint is dismissed, and complainant is severely reprimanded.