G.R. No. RTJ-04-1831. February 2, 2007.
Government Service Insurance System, Petitioner, vs. Hon. Vicente A. Pacquing, Presiding Judge, Branch 28 and Mario Anacleto M. Bañez, Jr., Clerk of Court, RTC, San Fernando City, La Union, Respondents.

FACTS

This administrative case arose from a civil case for annulment of foreclosure filed by Bengson Commercial Building, Inc. against the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS). After the Court of Appeals affirmed a decision against GSIS, the case was remanded to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 26, San Fernando, La Union, presided by respondent Judge Vicente A. Pacquing, for execution. Judge Pacquing ordered GSIS to pay Bengson ₱31 million as costs of suit. When GSIS failed to pay, the judge issued an alias writ of execution.
Respondent Clerk of Court Mario Anacleto M. Bañez, Jr., acting as sheriff, enforced the writ by garnishing and selling GSIS’s shares in San Miguel Corporation at a public auction. GSIS moved to quash the writ, invoking the exemption of its funds and properties from execution under Section 39 of Republic Act No. 8291 (The GSIS Act of 1997). Judge Pacquing denied the motion, ruling that only specific funds necessary for GSIS’s actuarial solvency were exempt. GSIS then filed this administrative complaint against both respondents for ignorance of the law, bias, and violation of RA 8291.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Vicente A. Pacquing and Clerk of Court Mario Anacleto M. Bañez, Jr. are administratively liable for ignorance of the law and bias in issuing and implementing the alias writ of execution against properties claimed by GSIS to be exempt.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint. The Court held that for a judge to be held liable for gross ignorance of the law, the error must be gross or patent, deliberate, and malicious. An erroneous interpretation of the law, absent proof of bad faith, malice, or corrupt motive, constitutes a mere error of judgment correctible by judicial remedies, not an administrative offense. The Court found that Judge Pacquing’s interpretation of the scope of GSIS’s exemption under RA 8291, though subsequently contested in a separate judicial proceeding, was a judicial error, not gross ignorance.
The Court emphasized that the propriety of the execution and the applicability of the statutory exemption were substantive legal issues pending resolution in other cases (G.R. Nos. 137448 and 141454). Administrative liability cannot be predicated on actions taken in the exercise of a judge’s adjudicative functions, so long as there is no clear evidence of arbitrariness or bad faith. Similarly, the sheriff, in implementing a valid court order, cannot be faulted. Since the complaint was based solely on the respondents’ official actions in the civil case, and no malice or corrupt intent was proven, no administrative sanction was warranted. The Court noted that the proper recourse for GSIS was to pursue its judicial appeals, not an administrative case.