Mandaue judge cleared of administrative raps

The Supreme Court has dismissed the administrative charges that a Chinese businessman filed against a judge of a Mandaue City court, for lack of evidence.

The complainant, Constantino Sy accused judge Carlos Fernando, of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Mandaue City, of grave partiality, gross ignorance of the law, and dereliction of duty.

Sy alleged that Francisco failed to act on his motions for a temporary restraining order and a writ of preliminary injunction in a civil case, which he filed earlier against Ang Brian Huat Sons Industries, Inc.

The SC's first division however sustained the resolution of the Office of the Court Administrator dismissing the charges against Fernando, and eventually junked the complaints against him.

Division clerk of court Enriqueta Esguerra Vidal's report, as posted at the SC web site, said that the SC agreed with the findings of the court administrator that a judge cannot be held liable -civil, criminal or administrative- of any official act done in good faith.

Vidal said the SC rules that only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned.

In the case of Sy versus Fernando, the SC ruled that there has been no evidence for ill motive on the part of the judge when he failed to act on the motions of Sy in a civil case.

Sy alleged that Fernando did not give him a fair chance to prove the necessity of the motions he was asking for, and that the latter even denied outright his other motion for the conduct of an ocular inspection.

Fernando denied the charges saying he even decided the civil case in favor of Sy. He argued that he cannot be held liable administratively even if he erred in his decision because no fraud, dishonesty and corruption could be attributed in doing his official function.

Fernando said it was Sy instead who can be held liable for contempt of court for failing to disclose the filing of a second amendment of the civil case, which was an abandonment of his previous ancillary remedy for a TRO or preliminary injunction.

The judge then moved to cite Sy in contempt of court but the SC denied it. - Fred P. Languido