Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 216-CFI)
Facts:
The case involves an administrative complaint filed by Nonato Barroso against District Judge Andres P. Arche of the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Borongan, Eastern Samar. The complaint was lodged on March 13, 1973, with the President of the Philippines, following an adverse decision rendered by Judge Arche on January 4, 1972. Barroso, a retired stenographer, had sought to recover retirement benefits from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS), claiming an underpayment based on his own computation of P38,874.00, as opposed to the P22,590.00 actually paid by the GSIS. Barroso's dissatisfaction with the judge's ruling led him to accuse Judge Arche of dishonesty, oppression, incompetence, and inefficiency. The case was referred to the Secretary of Justice and subsequently to Justice Sixto Domondon of the Court of Appeals for investigation. Justice Domondon's report, dated July 24, 1975, noted that the issues raised in Barroso's complaint were also th...
Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 216-CFI)
Facts:
- Complainant Nonato Barroso, a retired stenographer, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Andres P. Arche of the Court of First Instance, Branch II, Borongan, Eastern Samar, on March 13, 1973.
- The complaint stemmed from Barroso's dissatisfaction with the adverse decision rendered by Judge Arche in Civil Case No. 1496, where Barroso sought to recover P38,874.00 in retirement benefits from the Government Service Insurance System (GSIS) but was awarded only P22,590.00 based on the GSIS's standard computation.
- Barroso accused Judge Arche of dishonesty, oppression, incompetence, and inefficiency for upholding the GSIS's computation rather than his interpretation of the retirement law.
- Barroso had already filed an appeal (CA-G.R. No. 50346-R) on January 31, 1973, challenging the same decision.
- The investigation revealed that the case was filed on August 28, 1970, submitted for decision on October 7, 1971, and decided on January 4, 1972, contradicting Barroso's claim of a 90-day delay.
- No evidence of malice or bias on the part of Judge Arche was found during the investigation.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- A litigant who disagrees with a judge's rulings must raise the errors on appeal rather than filing an administrative complaint.
- Judges cannot be held administratively liable for erroneous decisions absent malice, abuse, or wrongful conduct.
- Filing an administrative complaint raising the same issues as those on appeal is improper and can be considered harassment.
- The Court must protect judges from unwarranted administrative complaints to ensure the independence and integrity of the judiciary.