Title
Datuin, Jr. vs. Soriano
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1640
Decision Date
Oct 15, 2002
Judge Soriano faced allegations of bias, partiality, and incompetence during a pre-trial conference, including failure to issue a detailed pre-trial order. The Supreme Court dismissed the complaint, citing lack of evidence and upholding judicial discretion and presumption of regularity.
bias
incompetence
dismissal of charges
A

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-29498)

Factual Background

During the trial of the civil case, Atty. Datuin appeared as counsel for the defendant. On October 13, 1999, he filed a Motion for Disqualification against respondent during the pendency of the case. The motion alleged, in substance, that at the pre-trial conference of September 21, 1999, Judge Soriano showed alleged partiality by “arrogantly hollering” at the defendant’s counsel, and that, in chambers, the judge intimated that if there were a buyer of property under TCT No. 368418 worth Ten (10) Million Pesos, which was allegedly being illegally withheld by the plaintiff, the buyer should be made to appear before him. The motion also asserted that the property had “nothing to do with the subject matter” of the plaintiff’s claim of Php 531,000.00.

Atty. Datuin further claimed that respondent failed to resolve the motion for disqualification for about three months, prompting the filing of a letter dated January 10, 2000 received by the Office of the Chief Justice on January 20, 2000. In that letter-complaint, he attributed incompetency to respondent and requested that the motion be treated as an administrative charge for removal from office.

Administrative Referral and Proceedings

The letter-complaint was endorsed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which, through an Indorsement dated February 9, 2000, directed respondent to file a Comment within ten days from receipt. Respondent filed his Comment on March 7, 2000. He denied that he failed to resolve the motion within three months and pointed to three central points: first, that he had already granted the motion by Order of December 27, 1999, which allegedly disproved bias; second, that even assuming the veracity of the “hollering” allegation, that conduct, by itself, did not show bias or partiality; and third, that he intended to issue the detailed pre-trial order contemplated by Rule 18, Sec. 7 after the transcript of stenographic notes taken during pre-trial was completed.

On July 11, 2001, the Court’s Third Division referred the matter to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals for raffle among associate justices, with a directive that the assigned associate justice submit the investigation, report, and recommendation within sixty days. The CA raffle assigned the matter to Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes.

After a hearing on September 19, 2001, the Investigating Justice issued a REPORT on May 2, 2002, partly finding that nothing in respondent’s conduct warranted punitive discipline by the Court. It concluded that, beyond the complainant’s assertions, the imputation of impartiality was not sufficiently substantiated, and that the complainant failed to discharge the burden of proof in administrative cases. The report recommended dismissal.

The Parties’ Contentions

The administrative case rested on allegations that respondent: (a) was biased and partial during pre-trial, as shown by allegedly abusive conduct and by intimations regarding presentation of a prospective buyer of the contested property; (b) failed to resolve the motion for disqualification within the alleged period, demonstrating incompetence; and (c) violated Section 7 of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure by allegedly failing to issue the pre-trial order reciting in detail the matters taken up in the conference.

Respondent countered that he granted the motion for disqualification through an order dated December 27, 1999, prior to the letter-complaint, and that the “hollering” allegation lacked evidentiary support as to content and surrounding circumstances. He also explained that his intended pre-trial order was not the order contemplated by Rule 18, Sec. 7 until after completion of the transcription of stenographic notes to ensure reflection of all matters discussed.

Court’s Evaluation of the Evidence and Allegations

The Court held that the complaint had no adequate factual and legal basis. It reiterated that, in administrative proceedings, the complainant bore the burden of proving the allegations against a judge, generally by substantial evidence. The Court found that the complainant failed to discharge that burden.

On the allegation that respondent had been biased during pre-trial, the Court noted that the motion for disqualification had already been granted before Atty. Datuin filed the letter-complaint. This sequence, in the Court’s view, undermined the claim of partiality intended to affect the civil case.

Regarding the charge that respondent “yelled” at complainant, the Court ruled that the complainant presented no evidence as to its content nor the circumstances in which it was made. The Court therefore declined to treat the allegation as a sufficient basis for punitive action.

On the alleged chamber intimation that a prospective buyer should be made to appear, the Court observed that Atty. Datuin did not dispute during the hearing before the Investigating Justice that respondent made the intimation in open court as part of an attempt to settle the civil case. The Court further characterized the argument that such request implied hidden agenda as unsubstantiated speculation. It also held that respondent’s efforts toward an amicable settlement were consistent with the judge’s pre-trial mandate to consider the possibility of settlement.

The Court emphasized the presumption of regularity in the performance of judicial functions. It held that bias, prejudice, and even undue interest could not be presumed, particularly in light of the judge’s sworn duty to administer justice without respect to any person.

With respect to the alleged violation of Rule 18, Sec. 7, the Court treated the matter as one that did not warrant discipline absent fraud, dishonesty, or corruption. It referenced the doctrinal rule that acts of a judge in a judicial capacity generally remain beyond disciplinary review even if erroneous, and that a judge cannot be administratively liable for every erroneous order or decision. The Court accepted respondent’s explanation that his earlier order was not the detailed pre-trial order contemplated by Rule 18, Sec. 7, because the judge issued the intended pre-trial order only after the transcription of stenographic notes was completed, to ensure accurate recitation of the matters taken up during pre-trial. The Court found no prohibition against that practice and found no showing of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.

As to the charge of incompetence, the Court held that the complainant failed to prove it. It found that respondent’s alleged inaction regarding a Motion for Release of Title filed on September 7, 1999, opposed on October 7, 1999, did not show incompetence. It reasoned that the subsequent motion for disqualification had assailed respondent’s objectivity, and respondent granted it. The Court thus treated the complained-of timing as not establishing incompetence.

Finally, the Court addressed the invocation of Supreme Court Circular No. 1-89, which sets a ninety-day timeframe for completing presentation of evidence. It found that the complainant failed to show how the circular applied to the complaint’s specific allegation that respondent failed to resolve the motion for disqualification within three months. The Court credited respondent’s claim that the motion was submitted on November 16, 1999 and resolved on December 27, 1999, which, in the Court’s view, left no basis to establish a violation that would warrant administrative discipline.

Professional Conduct of the Complainant During Proceedings

In addition to evaluating the merits, the Court considered the complainant’s deportment during the hearing before the Investigating Justice. It quoted statements of Atty. Datuin addressed to respondent, includi

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms