Title
Supreme Court
Atoc vs. Camello
Case
I.P.I. No. 16-241-CA-J
Decision Date
Nov 29, 2016
A resident filed an administrative complaint against CA justices for issuing a TRO and injunction in a case involving a mayor's dismissal. SC dismissed the complaint, citing judicial immunity, lack of bad faith, and the complainant's lack of standing.

Case Summary (G.R. No. 128690)

Background of the Case

On March 13, 2015, William G. Guillani filed a complaint against Moreno and BaAez for grave misconduct and abuse of authority before the Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao. The Ombudsman found them guilty and imposed a penalty of dismissal. Following this, the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) was served with the decision for implementation. However, shortly thereafter, Moreno and BaAez filed petitions for certiorari with urgent motions for a temporary restraining order (TRO) to halt the dismissal.

Issuance of the TRO

On November 13, 2015, the Court of Appeals granted the TRO, which prohibited the DILG from enforcing the Ombudsman's dismissal order. A subsequent manifestation by the DILG highlighted confusion over the interim leadership of Cagayan de Oro City, as the DILG had already implemented the dismissal before receiving the TRO. The Court of Appeals clarified that the TRO preserved the status quo, recognizing Moreno and BaAez as the lawful mayor and city treasurer, respectively.

Writ of Preliminary Injunction

On January 11, 2016, the Court of Appeals issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction to further protect Moreno and BaAez's positions pending resolution of the underlying case. Atoc, claiming to be aggrieved, later filed a verified complaint against the justices, seeking their disbarment based on their actions in the case.

Respondents’ Defense

The respondent justices filed a joint comment on Atoc's complaint, arguing that Atoc was merely recycling prior charges. They asserted that the complainant had circumvented pending judicial remedies available to him. They contended that administrative complaints against judges cannot be pursued while judicial processes related to the same matter are ongoing.

Findings of the Court

The court dismissed Atoc's complaint for lack of merit. It reasoned that the justices acted within their judicial functions and that the claim lacked evidence. The ruling emphasized that judges enjoy protection against administrative sanctions for errors in judgment made in good faith, and that mere disagreement with judicial rulings does not constitute grounds for disciplinary action.

Legal Principles Involved

The decision reiterated critical legal principles, including that a judge cannot be held administratively liable for acting in good faith, and that

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur is a legal research platform serving the Philippines with case digests and jurisprudence resources.