Facts:
On October 15, 2002, the Third Division resolved an administrative complaint filed by
Atty. Hermogenes Datuin, Jr. against
Judge Andres B. Soriano, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan. The complaint stemmed from
Civil Case No. 1335-8 (a complaint for
sum of money) filed on December 24, 1998 by
Olivia Natividad against
Teresita Lopez, raffled to Branch 13 presided by respondent. Complainant appeared as counsel for the defendant in the civil case. During the trial, on October 13, 1999, complainant filed a
Motion for Disqualification alleging that in the pre-trial conference of September 21, 1999, respondent acted with partiality by “arrogantly hollering” at defense counsel, and that when approached in chambers, respondent intimated that if there were a buyer of property under
TCT No. 368418 worth
Ten (10) Million Pesos, which complainant alleged was illegally withheld by the plaintiff, the prospective buyer should be made to appear before him because it would allegedly show his interest in the transaction that was said to be unrelated to the plaintiff’s claim of
Php 531,000.00. Complainant further claimed respondent failed to resolve the motion for about three months, and on January 10, 2000 he wrote the Office of the Chief Justice requesting that the motion be treated as an administrative charge for removal. The letter was endorsed to the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which directed respondent to file a comment. Respondent filed his comment on March 7, 2000, denying the claimed non-resolution and asserting that his grant of the motion by order of December 27, 1999 disproved bias, that even assuming respondent hollered at counsel, this did not alone establish bias, and that he intended to later issue the detailed pre-trial order contemplated in
Rule 18, Sec. 7 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure after completion of the transcript. The case was referred to the Court of Appeals for raffle and investigation. After a hearing on September 19, 2001, the Investigating Justice issued a report on May 2, 2002 recommending dismissal for lack of sufficient substantiation, reasoning that complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof required in administrative proceedings and that the alleged acts did not establish personal bias or any actionable misconduct. The Court, in resolving the administrative complaint, likewise dismissed the charges, finding them bereft of adequate factual and legal bases, and further noting that complainant’s conduct as a member of the bar during the investigation reflected disregard of professional courtesy and candor.
Issues:
Whether
Judge Andres B. Soriano should be held administratively liable for alleged bias and partiality, failure to resolve a
Motion for Disqualification within the period claimed by the complainant, and alleged violation of
Rule 18, Sec. 7 and related competence standards.
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: