ANTONIO ALMENDRA v.

JUDGE ENRIQUE ASIS

AM RTJ-1550 | April 6, 2000
Pardo, J.

Doctrine: An impartial judge is one who acts in bad faith, malice, revenge or other similar
motive with regards to him
arriving to a decision.

FACTS
Petitioner in this case filed three administrative complaints against respondent who is the
presiding judge of Branch 10 of Leyte RTC for partiality, gross ignorance of the law, knowingly
rendering unjust judgment and violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The first
administrative complaint arose when the trial court and the CA declared the petitioner and some
of his siblings as the rightful owners of the subject land. It is said that the heirs of the original
complainant filed another petition for quieting of title, the respondent judge granted the same and
disregarded the Final and Executory Decision of the Court of Appeals. Petitioner alleged that
respondent judge caused "undue injury" through "manifest partiality, undue interest, evident bad
faith or inexcusable negligence in failing to observe the doctrine of res judicata. In his answer,
the respondent judge claims that he did not reverse a previous decision but merely specified the
division of the property in question. Petitioner also caused the filing of two more administrative
complaint imputing bias, prejudice, unfairness to the respondent.
The Court then referred the action to Associate Justice Salazar-Fernando for
investigation, report and recommendation. According to the report submitted by her, respondent
should be held liable for serious inefficiency by rendering a judgment despite the existence of a
final and executory order by the CA.

ISSUES AND HOLDING

1. W/N the respondent acted with partiality in rendering the assailed decisions? – NO.
The Court agrees to the findings of the investigation judge that respondent should be held
liable for serious inefficiency for failing to observe the doctrine of res judicata and failing to
accord respect to CA. Judges should respect the orders, resolutions and decisions of higher
courts, specially the highest court. However, the Court finds nothing wrong with the assailed
acts of respondent judge in the 2nd and 3rd administrative complaint.
In all the administrative cases, the petitioner repeated imputed charges of bias, partiality
and unfairness toward respondent judge. However, the fact that respondent ruled against
petitioner did not automatically equate to partiality or unjust judgment. A judge will be held
administratively liable for rendering an unjust judgment where he acts in bad faith, malice,
revenge or some other similar motive. Absent the element of bad faith, an erroneous
judgment cannot be the basis of a charge of any offense, mere error of judgment not being a
ground for disciplinary action. In the present case, petitioner failed to prove that respondent
judge acted with bad faith in rendering the assailed decisions.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Enrique C. Asis guilty of serious

inefficiency and suspends him from office for ten (10) days and in addition, imposes a fine of
P40,000.00, payable within ten (10) days from notice of this resolution, with WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

SERAPIO C2021 | 1