G.R. No. RTJ-95-1326 July 8, 1998
Annabelle R. Gutierrez, complainant, vs. Hon. Rodolfo G. Palattao, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Annabelle R. Gutierrez was convicted by respondent Judge Rodolfo G. Palattao of the Regional Trial Court of Manila for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 (Bouncing Checks Law) and for Estafa under Article 315(2)(d) of the Revised Penal Code. The charges stemmed from five checks she issued to Ligaya V. Santos as a guarantee for a loan, which were dishonored for being drawn against a “closed account.” After the informations were filed, the parties executed documents indicating the charges were to be dropped after Gutierrez replaced the checks. One replacement check was later dishonored for “stop payment.” At trial, the prosecution presented Santos as a witness and offered exhibits including the handwritten agreement and the dishonored replacement check, but did not present the original five bouncing checks as evidence. Respondent Judge convicted Gutierrez. In her administrative complaint, Gutierrez alleged Serious Misconduct, Graft and Corruption, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Decision, Falsification of Public Document, and Gross Ignorance of the Law. Her grounds included: (1) lack of jurisdiction as the penalty was within Metropolitan Trial Court jurisdiction under R.A. No. 7691 ; (2) failure to establish venue and time of offense; (3) absence of the original checks in evidence, thus no corpus delicti; (4) arbitrary imposition of penalty for estafa; (5) antedated and rushed promulgation of decision; and (6) whimsical cancellation of bail.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rodolfo G. Palattao should be held administratively liable for Serious Misconduct, Graft and Corruption, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Decision, Falsification of Public Document, and Gross Ignorance of the Law based on the grounds raised by complainant Annabelle R. Gutierrez.

RULING

No, the administrative complaint against respondent Judge is dismissed for lack of merit. The Supreme Court held that the grounds raised by complainant pertain to errors of judgment, not to administrative culpability. On jurisdiction, R.A. No. 7691 expanding MTC jurisdiction did not apply retroactively to pending criminal cases like Gutierrez’s, which were filed before the law’s effectivity. On the alleged defective informations, the situs (Manila) and date (first week of March 1993) were sufficiently alleged; specific details were not essential elements, and the proper remedy was a motion to quash or appeal, not an administrative case. On the non-presentation of the original checks, the prosecution presented other evidence, including the handwritten agreement where Gutierrez admitted retrieving the old checks, which was not denied; the evaluation of this evidence is a judicial function. On the penalty for estafa, the imposed penalty of twelve years of prision mayor as minimum to twenty years of reclusion temporal as maximum was within the range fixed by law based on the amount defrauded (P370,000.00). On the antedated and rushed promulgation, the records showed multiple resettings due to pending petitions, and the decision was promulgated only after the Court of Appeals dismissed Gutierrez’s certiorari case and she failed to present her evidence on three scheduled dates. The Court found no evidence of malice or bad faith. Mere errors of judgment, unless so gross and patent as to imply ignorance, bad faith, or a knowingly unjust decision, are not actionable administratively. The charges were based on the judge’s legal rulings and factual assessments in the exercise of his judicial function, which are correctible by appeal, not by administrative sanction.