GEORGE T. CHUA vs. JUDGE FORTUNITO L.

MADRONA
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2394 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 12-3847-RT J) (September 1, 2014)
J. Bersamin

A trial judge is not accountable for performing his judicial functions and
office because such performance is a matter of public duty and responsibility.
No administrative charge for manifest partiality, gross misconduct, and gross
ign orance of the law should be brought against him for the orders issued in the
due course of judicial proceedings.

Facts:

In 1994, Manila Bay Development Corporation (MBDC) entered into a contract of

lease to Jimmy Gow, who was the president of Uniwide for a period of 20 years of 10
hectares of reclaimed land in Paraaque City. A year later, the lease was assigned to
Uniwide Holdings, Inc. (Uniwide).

In 2011, Uniwide filed an action for reformation of contract against MBDC in the
RTC in Paraaque City. Petitioner alleged that MBDC failed to develop the area into a
commercial and business center and that subsequent changes in circumstances had
gone beyond the contemplation of the parties at the time they entered into the lease
contract. The complaint was raffled to Branch 274 under respondent Presiding Judge
Fortunito L. Madrona. Summons and copy of the complaint were served upon MBDC.
On the last day for the filing of its responsive pleading, MBDC moved for the dismissal
of the complaint instead of filing its answer, claiming prescription and failure to state a
cause of action. The trial court denied the motion to dismiss and MBDC received the
copy of the order on September 26, 2011, and filed its motion for reconsideration 11
days thereafter. Before MBDC could file its reply, Uniwide filed a motion to declare
MBDC in default.

Judge Madrona issued an order declaring MBDC in default for not filing a reply
and declaring its motion for reconsideration moot. Petitioner George T.Chua, as the
president of MBDC, filed a complaint-affidavit charging respondent judge with
manifest partiality, gross misconduct, and gross ignorance of the law. The Court
referred the administrative case to the Court of Appeals for investigation and
recommendation.

The complainant also accused Judge Madrona of tampering with the minutes of
the November 18, 2011 hearing, alleging that during the hearing, MBDC was given 15
days to comment on Uniwides motion to declare defendant in default, which was
reflected in the minutes of the RTC and confirmed by Sofronio Rojo, the court
interpreter, but that the minutes were later made out to give only 10 days to MBDC.

The Investigator finds that Judge Madrona erred in declaring MBDCs motion for
reconsideration of the order denying motion to dismiss as mooted and in declaring
MBDC in default in his assailed Order dated December 23, 2011. MBDC cannot be
legally declared in default as it still has a pending motion for reconsideration of the
order denying its motion to dismiss. Judge Madrona erred in resolving simultaneously
the MBDCs motion for reconsideration and Uniwides motion to declare defendant in
default. With the filing of MBDCs motion for reconsideration, the running of the
prescriptive period to file an Answer was interrupted, thus, the counting of the period
shall only begin to run upon MBDCs receipt of the Order denying the motion for
reconsideration of the RTCs Order dated August 1, 2011.

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not Judge Madrona can be held administratively liable on the

grounds of manifest partiality, gross misconduct and ignorance of the law.

2. Whether or not Judge Madrona acted in bad faith for correcting the minutes by
changing the number of days to file a comment and reply.

Ruling:

1. No, Judge Madrona cannot be held administratively liable.

It is settled that a judges failure to interpret the law or to properly appreciate the
evidence presented does not necessarily render him administratively liable. Only
judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith, or deliberate
intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. To hold otherwise would
be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret
the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.

In this case, other than the judicial error committed by Judge Madrona, MBDC
failed to adduce convincing evidence showing that Judge Madronas error was so
gross or patent, deliberate and malicious or incurred with evident bad faith. Neither
was bias nor partiality established. Acts or conduct of the judge clearly indicative of
arbitrariness or prejudice must be clearly shown before he can be branded the stigma
of being biased and partial. In the same vein, bad faith or malice cannot be inferred
simply because the judgment or order is adverse to a party.

Courts are created on public grounds; they are to do justice as between suitors,
to the end that peace and order may prevail in the political society, and that rights may
be protected and preserved. The duty is public, and the end to be accomplished is
public; the individual advantage or loss results from the proper and thorough or
improper and imperfect performance of a duty for which his controversy is only the
occasion. The judge performs his duty to the public by doing justice between
individuals, or, if he fails to do justice as between individuals, he may be called to
account by the State in such form and before such tribunal as the law may have
provided. But as the duty neglected is not a duty to the individual, civil redress, as for
an individual injury, is not admissible."

In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving the

allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence, i.e.,that amount of relevant
evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion.
We are reminded that administrative charges against judges have been viewed with
utmost care, as the respondent stands to face the penalty of dismissal or disbarment.
The proceedings of this character are highly penal in nature and are to be governed
by the rules or law applicable to criminal cases. The charges in such case must,
therefore, be proven beyond reasonable doubt.

2. No, Judge Madrona acted in good faith for changing the entry of the minutes.

This Investigator is convinced that Judge Madrona acted in good faith when he
corrected the Minutes of the November 18, 2011 hearing. We agree with Judge
Madrona that the changes made from 15 days to 10 days for the parties to file their
respective Comment and Reply were done to correct the error and in order to conform
with the usual court practice of allowing only 10 days to file a comment.

It was inaccurate for MBDC to claim that the correction was purposely intended to
make it appear that MBDC untimely filed its comment to the subject motion as
Uniwide was also given the same period of time to file its reply. More so, despite
MBDCs late filing of its comment beyond the 10 day period, the same was still
considered in the resolution of Uniwides motion, thus, showing that the correction
was not intended to solely prejudice MBDC but merely to conform with the courts
prevailing practice. Here, MBDCs accusation against Judge Madrona for grave
misconduct and manifest partiality is without basis.

It is significant to emphasize the inherent power of the courts as provided under

Section 5 (g) of Rule 135, that every court shall have the inherent power to amend
and control its processes and orders, so as to make them conformable to law and
justice." This power includes the right to reverse itself, especially when in its honest
opinion it has committed an error or mistake in judgment, and that to adhere to its
decision will cause injustice to a party-litigant.

The correction of the minutes was done by Judge Madrona under the inherent
powers of his court to control its own orders and processes before they became
immutable. In changing in the minutes the period stated for filing the comment and the
reply from 15 days to 10 days, Judge Madrona was merely correcting the period
conformably with the existing practice in his branch of granting only the shorter period
of 10 days to make such filings. In that context, no bad faith should be inferred,
considering that both parties were subject to the same 10-day period. Moreover,
MBDC did not suffer actual prejudice from the change inasmuch as Judge Madrona
had actually noted MBDCs comment, and had considered such comment in issuing
his December 23, 2011 ruling.

Under the circumstances obtaining in this case, the undersigned Investigator

considers Judge Madronas act of changing the period of time to file the comment and
reply to have been done in good faith and in accordance with the courts inherent
power to amend and control his orders in the interest of justice and speedy disposition
of the case. Judge Madronas contention was supported by the Affidavit executed by
Mr. Rojo, comprehensively explaining the reason why the period of filing the pleadings
in the Minutes of November 18, 2011 hearing was changed. Mr. Rojos affidavit
remained uncontested and this Investigator believes that it should be given weight as
he was the one who had conferred with the parties prior to the said hearing and had it
signed by their counsels.