HON. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, PETITIONER, VS. HON. JUDGE BERNARDO LL. SALAS AND GEORGE CARLOS, RESPONDENTS.

In 1977, Civil Case No. B-398 (Gloria Naval vs. George Carlos)
for recovery of ownership of a parcel
of coconut land was filed
and subsequently raffled to the sala of
the petitioner, Judge Adriano Villamor. While the civil case was pending there, respondent Carlos filed Criminal Cases Nos. N-989, N-990,
N-991, N-992 and N-993 for qualified theft against Gloria Naval and her
helpers. The criminal cases were also
assigned to the sala of Judge
Villamor.

Due to the pendency of
Civil Case No. B-398, the criminal cases were temporarily archived.

After trial in Civil Case
No. B-398, a decision was rendered in favor of Naval who was declared the
lawful owner and possessor of the disputed land. Carlos was ordered to vacate the land.

Thereafter, respondent
Carlos, through counsel, moved to activate the archived criminal cases. Having declared Naval the lawful owner and
possessor of the contested land in Civil Case No. B-398,
Judge Villamor dismissed the
criminal cases against her and her co-accused.

Judge Villamor likewise
granted execution pending appeal of his decision in Civil Case No. B-398. This order was challenged by Carlos in the
Court of Appeals and in this Court, both without success.

Afterwards, Carlos filed
an administrative case, A.M. No. RTJ-87-105, against Judge Villamor, charging
him with having issued illegal
orders and an unjust decision in Civil
Case No. B-398. On November 21, 1988, this Court, in an En Banc
resolution, summarily dismissed the
administrative case.

Dissatisfied with the
outcome of the administrative
case, respondent Carlos filed a civil action for damages (Civil Case No. CEB-6478)
against Judge Villamor for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment when he
dismissed the five (5) criminal cases against Naval, et al.

The summons in Civil Case
No. CEB-6478 was served upon Judge Villamor on December 10, 1987. The next day (December 11, 1987), instead of
answering the complaint, Judge Villamor issued in Criminal Cases Nos. N-0989 to
0993 an order of direct contempt against Carlos and his lawyer, Attorney
Antonio T. Guerrero, “for degrading the respect and
dignity of the court through the use of derogatory and contemptuous language
before the court,” and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for five (5) days and to pay a fine of P500.

Carlos immediately filed
in this Court a petition for certiorari with a prayer for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction against the Judge (G.R. Nos.
82238-42). We promptly restrained Judge
Villamor from enforcing his Order of Contempt against Carlos and Attorney
Guerrero. On November 13, 1989, we
annulled the contempt order. (See pp.
26-34, Rollo of G.R. No. 101041.)

Back to Civil Case No.
CEB-6478: Judge Villamor filed a motion
to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The trial court granted the motion. The order of
dismissal was affirmed by the Court
of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 20657, June 26, 1990). Carlos appealed to this Court which also denied the
petition. (p. 125, Rollo of G.R. No.
101296.)

Unfazed by these
setbacks, Carlos and his counsel, Attorney Antonio Guerrero, filed separate
complaints for damages against Judge Villamor for knowingly rendering an unjust
order of contempt.

Attorney Guerrero’s
complaint for damages (Civil Case No. CEB-8802) was raffled to Branch 21,
Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, presided over by Judge Peary G. Aleonar. Carlos’ complaint for damages was docketed as
Civil Case No. CEB-8823 and raffled to
Branch 8, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City presided over by Judge Bernardo LL.
Salas.

On March 30, 1990, Judge Villamor filed a motion to dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-8802 but it was denied by Judge Aleonar
(p. 33, Rollo of G.R. No. 101296).

Hence, this petition for certiorari
and prohibition with restraining order docketed as G.R. No. 101296.

On September 19, 1991, this
Court issued a temporary restraining order against Judge Aleonar to stop him
from proceeding in Civil Case No. CEB-8802 (pp. 45-46, Rollo of G.R. No.
101296).

On May 20, 1991, a
Manifestation was filed by Judge Villamor praying Judge Salas
to dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-8823 but the motion was denied by respondent
Judge on July 2, 1991 (pp. 13-16, Rollo of G.R. No. 101041).

Hence, this second
petition for certiorari and prohibition with restraining order (G.R. No.
101041).

On August 21, 1991, a
Resolution was issued by this
Court: 1) temporarily restraining Judge
Salas from further proceeding in
Civil Case No. CEB-8823; and 2)
granting the petitioner’s prayer that this case be consolidated with G.R. No.
101296 (pp. 37-39, Rollo of G.R. No. 101041).

The sole issue here
is: whether or not Judges Aleonar and
Salas may take cognizance of the actions for damages against Judge Villamor for
allegedly having rendered an unjust order of direct contempt against Carlos and
Attorney Guerrero which this Court subsequently annulled.

The answer is no.

As very aptly held by
this Court in a Resolution it issued in connection with a previous case filed
by respondent Carlos against Judge Villamor, over a similar action for
“Damages and Attorney’s Fees Arising From Rendering an Unjust
Judgment,” in dismissing the five (5) criminal cases for qualified theft
which he (respondent Carlos) had filed against Gloria P. Naval and others –

“Indeed, no Regional Trial Court can pass upon and scrutinize,
and much less declare as unjust a judgment of another Regional Trial Court and
sentence the judge thereof liable for damages without running afoul with the
principle that only the higher appellate courts, namely, the Court of Appeals
and the Supreme Court, are vested with authority to review and correct errors
of the trial courts.” (George D. Carlos vs. CA, G.R. No. 95560, November
5, 1990; p. 125, Rollo of G.R. No. 101296.)

To allow respondent
Judges Aleonar and Salas to proceed with the trial of the actions for damages
against the petitioner, a co-equal judge of a co-equal court would in effect
permit a court to review and interfere with the judgment of a
co-equal court over which it has no appellate jurisdiction or power of
review. The various branches of a Court
of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) being co-equal, may not
interfere with each other’s cases, judgments and orders (Parco vs. Court of
Appeals, 111 SCRA 262).

This Court has already
ruled that only after the Appellate Court, in a final judgment, has found that
a trial judge’s errors were committed deliberately and in bad faith may a
charge of knowingly rendering an unjust decision be levelled against the latter
(Garcia vs. Alconcel, 111 SCRA 178; Sta. Maria vs. Ubay, 87 SCRA 179; Gahol vs.
Riodique, 64 SCRA 494).

Nowhere in this Court’s
decision annulling Judge Villamor’s order of direct contempt (G.R. Nos.
82238-42, November 13, 1989) can there be found a declaration that the
erroneous order was rendered maliciously or with conscious and deliberate
intent to commit an injustice. In fact,
a previous order of direct contempt issued by Judge Villamor against Carlos’
former counsel was sustained by this Court (Jaynes C. Abarrientos, et al. vs. Judge Villamor, G.R. No. 82237,
June 1, 1988).

At most, the order of
direct contempt which we nullified may only be considered an error of judgment
for which Judge Villamor may not be held criminally or civilly liable to the respondents.

A judge is not liable for
an erroneous decision in the absence of malice or wrongful conduct in rendering
it (Barroso vs. Arche, 67 SCRA 161).

WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions for certiorari
are GRANTED. Civil Cases Nos. CEB-8802
and CEB-8823, respectively, pending in the salas of respondents Judge Peary G.
Aleonar and Judge Bernardo LL. Salas, are hereby dismissed. The temporary restraining orders issued by
this Court in these cases are hereby made permanent. No costs.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Feliciano, and Medialdea, JJ., concur.