AM RTJ 16 2454; (June, 2018) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-16-2454. June 06, 2018
PHILIP SEE, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 167, PASIG CITY, RESPONDENT.
FACTS
Complainant Philip See filed a civil case with a prayer for preliminary attachment against Ruth Bautista for non-payment of assigned contract proceeds. Respondent Judge Rolando Mislang granted the writ. The Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) and later Bautista filed motions to quash the garnishment, arguing the funds were still public money pending final acceptance of goods. The judge denied the initial motions.
Bautista subsequently filed another Motion to Quash. At the hearing for this motion, complainant, despite notice, failed to appear. The judge then directed complainant to file a comment within five days from the hearing. Not receiving any comment, the respondent judge issued an Order dated May 22, 2013, granting the motion and lifting the attachment. The funds were immediately released to Bautista, who withdrew them. Complainant, alleging he was left without an effective remedy, did not file a motion for reconsideration or a petition for certiorari. Instead, he filed this administrative complaint for dishonesty, gross misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for lifting the writ of preliminary attachment without awaiting complainant’s comment.
RULING
No. The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative complaint. The Court emphasized that an administrative complaint is not a substitute for a lost judicial remedy. Complainant admitted he did not avail of the proper judicial recourse, such as a motion for reconsideration or a petition for certiorari, under the belief it would be futile. The Court ruled this belief was mistaken. Disciplinary proceedings against judges are not complementary to, nor a substitute for, these available judicial remedies.
The legal logic is anchored on the principle of judicial independence and the hierarchy of remedies. Judges should not be held administratively accountable for every alleged erroneous ruling when an adequate judicial corrective exists. To do so would be tantamount to harassment and would undermine judicial independence. The Court found that the respondent judge acted within his jurisdiction in resolving the motion after setting it for hearing and providing the complainant an opportunity to comment. Any alleged error in the substantive decision to lift the attachment is an error of judgment, correctible by appeal or certiorari, not by an administrative charge. Since the complainant bypassed these judicial avenues, he cannot successfully pursue an administrative case.