AM RTJ 07 2052; (March, 2009) (Digest)

FACTS

Complainant Lorena P. Ong filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Oscar E. Dinopol, presiding judge of the RTC, Branch 24, Koronadal City, arising from Civil Case No. 1632, an action for declaration of nullity of marriage or legal separation filed by complainant against her husband, Domingo Ong. In the course of the trial, complainant filed a motion for a protection order seeking custody of her two minor children and support. By Order dated June 23, 2005, respondent granted complainant custody of their daughter. After Domingo sought reconsideration, respondent, by Order dated September 22, 2005, set aside his previous orders after conducting an unannounced interview with the children, who reportedly refused to stay with their mother, and ordered a status quo ante, with temporary custody remaining with Domingo. Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration. Respondent later directed a court-appointed Social Welfare Officer to conduct a child study. The Officer recommended that both parents undergo neuro-psychiatric evaluation and that the children remain with their father on school days and with their mother on weekends, on a six-month trial basis. By Order dated August 17, 2006, respondent approved this recommendation. Domingo filed a motion for reconsideration, and by Order dated August 25, 2006, respondent modified the custody schedule to an alternate weekly arrangement for a three-month trial period. Complainant did not file a motion for reconsideration of this August 25, 2006 Order but instead filed a motion for respondent’s inhibition, perceiving partiality in favor of Domingo. Before the inhibition motion could be heard, complainant filed the present administrative complaint, charging respondent with gross violation of specific sections of Republic Act No. 9262 (Anti-Violence Against Women and Their Children Act of 2004), gross violation of judicial ethics, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, and undue delay in resolving her motion to inhibit. Respondent denied the motion for inhibition by Order dated November 3, 2006. In his Answer to the administrative complaint, respondent denied the charges. During the investigation of the administrative case, respondent admitted in an affidavit that Domingo Ong had visited his house on two occasions to complain about issues related to the custody arrangement.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Oscar E. Dinopol is administratively liable for the acts complained of, namely: (1) gross violation of R.A. No. 9262; (2) gross violation of judicial ethics and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment; and (3) unduly delaying the resolution of a motion.

RULING

The Supreme Court DISMISSED the administrative complaint for lack of merit. The Court found that the acts complained of pertained to respondent’s judicial discretion in issuing orders in the custody case. Administrative liability cannot be predicated on the exercise of a judge’s judicial functions, such as the assessment of evidence and the issuance of orders, in the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. The Court agreed with the Investigating Justice that the evidence was insufficient to prove bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose on the part of respondent. The Court noted that complainant did not file a motion for reconsideration of the August 25, 2006 Order, which detailed the custody arrangement, and instead immediately sought inhibition and filed the administrative complaint. However, the Court ADMONISHED respondent for admitting that he entertained a party (Domingo Ong) in his residence during the pendency of the case. While this act was not alleged in the complaint and occurred after the material events leading to the complaint, it violated the injunction for judges to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. The Court reminded respondent to refrain from such conduct in the future.