LEONARDO L. RIVERA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BERNABE B. MENDOZA, CLERK OF COURT VI JONATHAN FLORO D. DELA CRUZ AND SHERIFF IV RIZALDE V. SEVERINO, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT …

Rivera versus Mendoza

The Case

This is an administrative case for manifest bias and partiality filed by Leonardo L. Rivera against three officers of the Regional Trial Court of Roxas, Isabela, Branch 23: Judge Bernabe B. Mendoza, Clerk of Court VI Jonathan Floro D. Dela Cruz, and Sheriff IV Rizalde V. Severino. Rivera complained that the judge favored the opposing party in a civil case for partition, a certain Dolores Querubin, who he claimed was an Australian citizen, and that the judge issued a writ of execution even though no final and executory judgment existed. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of two rules every reviewee must carry: an administrative complaint must state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions charged, and it is never a substitute for the ordinary and extraordinary judicial remedies against a judge's erroneous orders.

Procedural History

The case began as a letter complaint dated October 28, 2005, addressed to the Supreme Court. The then Court Administrator, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., informed Rivera on November 18, 2005 that his complaint could not be acted upon because it failed to state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting the alleged violations, and because it was not written in clear, simple and concise language that would apprise the respondents of the nature of the charge and enable them to prepare their defense. Rivera was directed to comply. In a letter dated December 21, 2005, he merely repeated that the respondents did not give credence to Querubin's nationality, and he asked the Court to intercede in the civil case by ordering the partition of the subject property. The Office of the Court Administrator, in its report dated May 30, 2006, found that the complaint did not comply with Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, that Rivera made only bare allegations without evidence, and that there was no necessity for the respondents even to comment. It recommended dismissal for lack of merit. The case reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it on the basis of that report.

Facts

Rivera was a party in a civil case for partition, docketed as Civil Case Number 23-569, entitled Spouses Leonardo and Francisca Rivera versus Dolores Querubin. He believed the trial judge was biased in favor of Querubin because she was an Australian citizen, and because the judge issued a writ of execution despite what Rivera claimed was the absence of a final and executory judgment.

Instead of pursuing judicial remedies in the civil case, Rivera wrote the Supreme Court a letter charging the judge, the clerk of court, and the sheriff with manifest bias and partiality. When told to cure the defects of his complaint, he did not supply the specific acts and omissions required. He simply repeated his grievance about Querubin's nationality and asked the Court to order the partition of the property.

The Office of the Court Administrator reviewed the records and observed that the complaint was defective in form and unsupported in substance. No evidence was offered to show how Querubin's nationality mattered, what the status of the civil case was, or what the clerk of court and the sheriff had done. The Court agreed and dismissed the complaint.

Issues

• Whether or not the complaint complied with the requirement that it state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting the violations charged.
• Whether or not the complainant established, by clear and convincing evidence, the charge of manifest bias and partiality against the respondents.
• Whether or not an administrative complaint is the proper remedy to correct a judge's alleged errors in issuing a writ of execution or in appreciating a party's nationality.

Applicable Provisions

Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 1. How instituted. - Proceedings for the discipline of Judges of regular and special courts and Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan may be instituted motu propio by the Supreme Court or upon a verified complaint, supported by affidavits of persons who have personal knowledge of the facts alleged therein or by documents which may substantiate said allegations, or upon an anonymous complaint, supported by public records of indubitable integrity. The complaint shall be in writing and shall state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting violations of standards of conduct prescribed for Judges by law, the Rules of Court, or the Code of Judicial Conduct.

This is the provision the Court used to measure the complaint against the judge, and it failed the test.

Section 8, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service provides, in its relevant parts:

Complaint. – A complaint against a civil service official or employee shall not be given due course unless it is in writing and subscribed and sworn to by the complainant.

The complaint should be written in a clear, simple and concise language and in a systematic manner as to apprise the civil servant concerned of the nature and cause of the accusation against him and to enable him to intelligently prepare his defense or answer.

In the absence of any one of the aforementioned requirements, the complaint shall be dismissed.

This rule governed the clerk of court and the sheriff, who are civil service officials, and it likewise required dismissal.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the complaint did not comply with Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court or with Section 8, Rule II of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service. Rivera alleged bias but never stated the specific acts or omissions that would constitute the violation, and he offered no documents or affidavits to substantiate his claims.

On the second issue, the Court held that the charge of manifest bias and partiality was bereft of factual or legal basis. Rivera failed to show how Querubin's nationality affected the outcome of the civil case, failed to prove the status of that case or that no final and executory judgment had yet been rendered, and made no averment at all as to the participation of the clerk of court and the sheriff. The Court stressed that the burden of proof in administrative proceedings rests on the complainant, and that bare allegations cannot overcome the presumption that a judge will dispense justice according to law and evidence, without fear or favor. Clear and convincing evidence is required, and extrinsic evidence is needed to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, in addition to any palpable error appearing on the face of the decision or order itself.

On the third issue, the Court held that even assuming the judge erred, the administrative complaint was not the proper remedy. The law provides ample judicial remedies against errors or irregularities of a trial court: ordinary remedies such as a motion for reconsideration, a motion for new trial, and appeal; and extraordinary remedies such as certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, a motion for inhibition, or a petition for change of venue. The Court quoted with approval the established doctrine:

Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether of civil, administrative, or criminal nature.

The Court added that it will not shirk from disciplining erring members of the bench, but it will equally shield them from unfounded suits, and it will not pronounce guilt on mere speculation.

Doctrine

First, an administrative complaint against a judge must be in writing and must state clearly and concisely the acts and omissions constituting the violation, supported by affidavits of persons with personal knowledge or by documents substantiating the allegations. A complaint against a civil service official must likewise be written in clear, simple and concise language, and in the absence of the required elements it shall be dismissed.

Second, in administrative proceedings the burden of proof rests on the complainant. A charge of bias and partiality requires clear and convincing evidence, and extrinsic evidence is required to establish bias, bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose, beyond any palpable error inferable from the order itself. Bare allegations do not overcome the presumption that a judge acts according to law and evidence.

Third, disciplinary proceedings against judges are not complementary or suppletory to, nor a substitute for, the ordinary and extraordinary judicial remedies. Resort to and exhaustion of those remedies, and the entry of judgment in the corresponding proceeding, are prerequisites before civil, administrative, or criminal measures may be taken against the judge.

Disposition

The administrative case against Judge Mendoza, Clerk of Court Dela Cruz, and Sheriff Severino was dismissed for lack of merit, and the respondents were cleared of the charges.

Remember This

Memorize the line that an administrative complaint is not a substitute for judicial remedies, and that bias must be proven by clear and convincing evidence, not by bare allegation. Examiners use this case to test the requisites of a disciplinary complaint under Section 1, Rule 140, and the doctrine of exhaustion of judicial remedies before filing an administrative charge against a judge.