FILOMENO R. NEGADO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MANUEL E. AUTAJAY, RTC, CARIGARA, LEYTE (BRANCH 13), RESPONDENT.

The complaint in the administrative case at bar was filed in this
Court by a practicing lawyer, Filomeno R. Negado. on July 10, 1986, at a time
when the respondent, Hon. Manuel E. Autajay, was still in government service as
Presiding Judge of Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court at Carigara,
Leyte. The latter has since retired. His application for retirement was approved
by this Court by Resolution dated March 12, 1992. The resolution decreed deferment of the payment to Judge Autajay
of his retirement benefits pending final adjudication of two administrative
cases against him: (1) this case (A.M.
No. R-710-RTJ) and (2) A.M. No. RTJ-91-747; however, by another Resolution
dated July 21, 1992 issued at Judge Autajay’s instance, this Court authorized
the release to him of all the money corresponding to his retirement benefits
except the sum of P50,000.00, which was ordered retained to respond for any
monetary liability that might be imposed on him in connection with the
administrative proceedings against him.

A.M. No. RTJ–91-747 was dismissed by this Court by Resolution dated
May 26, 1992. The case at bar was,
after issues were duly joined, referred for investigation and report on
September 20, 1992 to Hon. Justice Jesus M. Elbinias, Associate Justice of the
Court of Appeals. Justice Elbinias has
since completed the investigation — in the course of which the parties were
accorded full opportunity to adduce and did in fact adduce evidence in
substantiation of their respective submissions — and submitted his Report.

The charges levelled by complainant Negado against Judge Autajay
consisted of (1) corrupt practices, (2) impropriety, (3) abuse of discretion,
(4) dishonesty, (5) lack of integrity, (6) incompetence, (7) ignorance of the
law, and (8) favoritism.

The Investigating Justice found that the complainant’s evidence
failed to prove his accusations.

The evidence to establish complainant’s allegations of corrupt
practices (charge 1) and dishonesty (charge 4) consisted solely of the
affidavit of one Antonio Oledan, a tricycle operator, who states that a certain
“Junior,” identified as the caretaker of complainant’s
“litigant-opponent,” Rodel Miranda, had hired his tricycle several
times in 1985 and 1986 to bring bangus, prawns and shrimps to the house of
Judge Autajay, and that he (Junior) had told him that he was delivering the
fish, prawns and shrimps to Judge Autajay as “regalo.” The Court
agrees with the investigator that this affidavit is hearsay, “Junior”
never having been presented at the investigation to testify on the matter, and
the averments thereof cannot be regarded as competent evidence to prove the
serious accusation of bribery.

Also correctly rejected was the affidavit of Materno Torredes, a
retired public school teacher, presented by the complainant in proof of the
Judge’s acts of impropriety (charge 2), lack of integrity (charge 5), and
favoritism (charge 8). The affidavit
imputed to His Honor lack of “delicadeza” in that he “used to
attend/accept invitations to social affairs (such) as birthdays, Brgy. Fiesta,
death anniversaries, etc., given by people who have cases before his Court and
drank and socialized with them,” and asserted that “there were rumors
that he (the Judge) used to have favorable lawyers whom some people called his
law partners.” The allegations in the affidavit included “(n)o
specifics” such as “the names of the people involved, time, place,
etc.,” and were thus, according to the Investigator’s Report, “mere
conclusions and hearsay.”

In proof of the charges of abuse of discretion (No. 3),
incompetence (No. 6) and ignorance of the law (No. 7), complainant submitted
documents forming part of the records of four civil cases, and the affidavit of
Raquel Pamanian, the offended party in a criminal case for murder. Again, this Court accepts the Investigating
Justice’s dispositions as regards these accusations. Even assuming that the documents do reflect some error on the
part of respondent Judge committed in connection with the cases in question,
the error could not be characterized as so grave and on so fundamental a point
as to warrant condemnation of the Judge as patently ignorant or negligent. As pointed out by the Honorable Investigator
–

“** at most such error could only be either
of judgment or of jurisdiction or, simply, judicial in nature. These errors could have been avoided or
remedied through further judicial processes, and not through an administrative
complainant such as the instant case.

When a person seeks administrative sanction against a judge simply
because he has committed an error in deciding the case against such person, * *
when such error can be elevated to a higher court for review and correction,
the action of such person can only be suspect.

In Ramirez vs. Corpuz-Macandong (Adm. Matter No. R-351- RTJ,
144 SCRA 462, 474-475 [1986]), the Supreme Court held:

‘ * * “(T)o hold a judge administratively accountable for
every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred,
would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position
unbearable.”

‘Similarly, in the case of Vda. de Zabal vs. Pamaran, 39
SCRA 430, this Court had the occasion to pronounce that “mere errors in
the appreciation of evidence, unless so gross and patent as to produce an
inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly rendered an
unjust decision * * are irrelevant and immaterial in an administrative
proceeding against him.” We further stated: “If in the mind of the respondent the evidence for the
defense was entitled to more weight and credence, he cannot be held to account
administratively for the result of that ratiocination.’”

A thoroughgoing review of the record fails to disclose any
adequate evidentiary foundation for any of the wrongs ascribed to His Honor, or
for the overruling of the Investigating Justice’s “conclusion that
complainant failed to make out his case even with simple preponderance of
evidence against respondent.”

WHEREFORE, the complaint against the respondent Judge is
DISMISSED, and the immediate payment to him of the amount withheld from his
retirement and gratuity benefits is hereby DIRECTED.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Griño-Aquino, Regalado,
Davide, Jr., Romero, Nocon, Bellosillo, Melo, and
Quiason, JJ., concur.