SC clears CA associate justice of misconduct over labor case

The Supreme Court has cleared an associate justice of the Court of Appeals of misconduct and unethical behavior charges thus junking the demand of some dismissed workers of a San Remegio town-based firm, for disciplinary sanction against him for his alleged "unfair treatment" to their case.

In an en banc decision issued on July 8, the High Tribunal ruled that complainants Rafael Rondina, Roland Geron, Arturo Ortega, Bernardo Ramos, Robin Rondina and Danilo Abarao have failed to prove the guilt of Associate Justice Eloy Bello Jr. of the charges.

The complainants accused Bello of committing misconduct and unethical behavior when he restrained the voluntary arbitrator from conducting further proceedings of their labor case filed against their former employer Unicraft Industries International Corporation in Victoria, San Remigio.

They said they were among the 31 workers who served the company since 1980 but were kicked out of their jobs 15 years later allegedly due to their formation of a labor union.

They raised the matter to the SC after the Court of Appeals stopped the voluntary arbitrator from conducting further proceedings of their labor case without conducting first a hearing for them to present their sides.

"Justice Bello had committed grave injustice by restraining the voluntary arbitration proceedings, making the litigation eternal and our sufferings endless," they said in their unverified letter-complaint to the Supreme Court.

Bello's order came as a surprise because the SC had already ordered the case be remanded to the voluntary arbitrator for speedy judgment, they said. In his defense, Bello contended that if there are any error in the issuance of a resolution, the complainants should have filed a motion for reconsideration and other applicable remedies instead but they did not do so. He said the frustration of litigants over procedural rules is understandable but they should also realize that the responsibility of the courts is to render justice, and the rules have been designed to insure the proper dispensation of the same.

"While the expeditious disposal of cases is desirable, it should never be at the expense of justice," Bello argued.

The SC agreed saying that, under Rule 58 of the Rules of Court, a restraining order may be issued without the need to hear the other party of the case.

The SC said not every error or mistake a judge commits in the performance of duty renders him liable, unless he is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an injustice. "The complainant has the burden of proving the allegations...with substantial evidence", and without which, "the presumption that the respondent has regularly performed his duties will prevail," the SC ruled.

The CA is a collegiate court, which members render their collective judgment after due deliberation thus a charge for violation of law, merely on the allegations that a decision is "unjust", will not prosper. "The filing of charges of misconduct and unethical behavior against a single member of the appellate court, in this case Justice Bello, is inappropriate," said the SC ruling.