A.M. No.

MTJ-17-1891
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 15-2792-MTJ]

DOMINADOR BIADO, MAMERTO BIADO, CARLITO DELA CRUZ, NORMA DELA CRUZ, DANILO DELA
CRUZ, ROMULO MARANO SR., FRANCISCO PADILLA, LOLITA ABLIR AND SONNY
TONGCALO, Complainants
vs.
HON. MARIETTA S. BRAWNER-CUALING, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT [MCTC],
TUBA-SABLAN, BENGUET, Respondents

RESOLUTION

LEONEN, J.:

An administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for every action of a judge considered "aberrant
or irregular" especially when a judicial remedy exists.1

This is an administrative complaint2 for gross ignorance of the law

and manifest partiality relative to an ejectment case and damages docketed as Civil Case No. 302 against
Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing (respondent judge) of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tuba-
Sablan, Benguet. Complainants insist that respondent judge should be faulted for her cognizance of the
civil case and her subsequent issuance of the assailed decision and writ of execution despite lack of
jurisdiction.3

In their Joint Complaint Affidavit4 dated September 11, 2015 filed before the Office of the Court
Administrator, Dominador Biado, Mamerto Biado, Carlito Dela Cruz, Norma Dela Cruz, Danilo Dela Cruz,
Romulo Marano Sr., Francisco Padilla, Lolita Ablir and Sonny Tongcalo (complainants) stated that they
were the defendants in Civil Case No. 302 entitled Heirs of Cariño Sioco v. Dominador Biado et. al.5 filed
before the 5th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Tuba-Sablan, Benguet,6 over which respondent judge
presided.

On December 9, 2011, respondent judge issued a Decision7 in favor of the Heirs of Cariño Sioco.8 In her
decision, respondent judge found that all the elements of unlawful detainer were present in the
case.9 She directed the complainants to vacate the disputed lot and to "turn over the possession to the
plaintiffs."10 She also ordered them to pay monthly rental fees to the heirs until they vacated the
premises.11

Complainants appealed before the Regional Trial Court of La Trinidad, Benguet.12 However, their appeal
was dismissed due to their "failure to appear and participate in it."13 Since there was no further appeal
made, respondent judge's decision became final and executory.14

On December 14, 2012, through motion of the prevailing party, respondent Judge issued an Order
granting the Heirs of Cariño Sioco's Motion for Execution.15 Similarly, she issued a Writ for
Execution16 ordering the sheriff to cause the immediate implementation of the Decision.17
Complainants opposed the assailed decision and Writ of Execution, and claimed that respondent judge
had no jurisdiction over the case.18 They insisted that the disputed property was not within the
jurisdiction of Tuba-Sablan, Benguet but within Pangasinan.19 Moreover, there was an "existing
boundary dispute between Pangasinan and Benguet."20 They asserted that they had already brought this
matter to respondent judge's attention and "sought deferment on the case pending the resolution of the
boundary issue."21 To bolster their claim, they even allegedly presented the Municipal Index Map of San
Manuel, Pangasinan and the Land Clarification of Benguet and Pangasinan.22 However, these were
ignored by the respondent judge.23

Complainants averred that respondent judge should have at least "inquired by herself" on the exact
location of the disputed property to determine if she had jurisdiction over the case.24 Respondent judge
showed her gross ignorance of the law and her manifest partiality against them for her failure to know
the exact location of the disputed property.25 For this reason, they were prompted to file this
administrative case against her.

In her Comment26 dated November 23, 2015, respondent judge denied the accusations relative to her
alleged manifest partiality and gross ignorance of the law.27 She claimed that this administrative
complaint was a "mere ploy to divert the implementation of the decision in Civil Case No. 302,"28 which
already attained finality as of September 17, 2012, per Entry of Judgment dated January 23, 2013.29 A
Writ of Execution had already been issued, which complainants ignored.30 A Writ of Demolition has
likewise been issued after complainants failed to willingly remove their constructions.31 Instead of
obeying the writ, complainants filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before the Court of Appeals
docketed as CA-G.R. SP. No. 131838.32 Their petition, however, was dismissed33 on October 4,2013.

Due to complainants' "obstinate refusal" to comply with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court's order, the
Heirs of Cariño Sioco filed a Petition for Indirect Contempt against them docketed as Special Civil Action
Case No. 03, which has been pending resolution.34

Respondent judge maintained that she had jurisdiction to rule over the case.35 She relied on the
plaintiff's complaint and the respondent's answer, which "categorically stated that both parties were
residents and/or occupants of the parcels of land located at Barangay Ansangan, Tuba,
Benguet,"36 Several other documents37 submitted by the complainants, showed that they acknowledged
the fact that the disputed property was in Benguet and not in San Manuel, Pangasinan.38

Contrary to complainants' assertion that they immediately raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction as soon
as they learned about it, "it was only in their position paper, by way of a motion to dismiss, that
complainants for the first time, questioned the court's lack of jurisdiction."39 Also, respondent judge
maintained that she did not ignore this issue and even ruled on the matter in her assailed decision.40

The Office of the Court Administrator, through a Report dated June 28, 2016, recommended the
dismissal of this case for being judicial in nature and for lack of merit.41

We affirm the recommendation.

This administrative complaint is due to respondent judge's cognizance of Civil Case No. 302 and her
consequent issuance of the assailed Decision dated December 9, 2011 as well as the Writ of Execution.
Complainants assert that these decisions were tainted with manifest partiality42 and that respondent
judge's conduct constitutes gross ignorance of the law since she ruled on the case even though she had
no jurisdiction over it.43

"[A]n administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a Judge deemed aberrant
or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available[.]"44 It must be underscored that "the acts of a
judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action."45 He cannot be civilly, criminally, or
administratively liable for his official acts, "no matter how erroneous," provided he acts in good faith.46

In this case, it is apparent that the assailed orders relate to respondent judge's acts in her judicial
capacity. These alleged errors, therefore, cannot be the proper subject of an administrative proceeding,
but is only correctible through judicial remedies. Hence, what complainants should have done was to
appeal the assailed orders to the higher court .for review and not to file an administrative complaint
against responden t judge. "Disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions do not complement,
supplement or substitute judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary."47

It is to be emphasized that the complainants initially filed a Petition for Annulment of Judgment before
the Court of Appeals relative to the assailed orders. As correctly observed by the Office of the Court
Administrator, this act showed complainants' recognition that the issues they were raising against
respondent judge required judicial determination. Thus,

Finally, it must be pointed out that complainants elevated the alleged erroneous decision of herein
respondent judge to the Court of Appeals by way of a Petition for Annulment of Judgment, which the
appellate court dismissed in a Resolution dated 4 October 2013. To us, such actuation is an indication
that complainants indeed recognized that the issue that they were raising against respondent judge was
one that was appropriate for judicial determination. Also noteworthy is the fact that after their petition
for annulment of judgment was dismissed by the Court of Appeals, complainants sought recourse. On 17
September 2015, they filed an administrative complaint before this Office... (Emphasis supplied)

An issue of jurisdiction is a judicial matter,48 which can only be decided upon through judicial remedies.
A party's recourse, if prejudiced by a judge's orders in the course of a trial, is with the proper reviewing
court and not with the Office of the Court Administrator, through an administrative complaint.49

II

The complainants' imputation of gross ignorance of the law must also fail. "Gross ignorance transcends a
simple error in the application of legal provisions. In the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the
acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are generally not subject to disciplinary action, even though such
acts are erroneous."50
To be liable for gross ignorance of the law, the assailed orders of a judge, who acts in his official
capacity, should not only be erroneous; it must be established that his actuation was attended by "bad
faith, dishonesty, hatred" or other similar motive.51 In this case, complainants failed to do establish this.
In their Joint-Complaint Affidavit, they merely claimed that:

11. It is very clear that MCTC-Tuba has no jurisdiction over the Subject Property. As a judge, Judge
Brawner-Cualing should know this very well.1âwphi1

12. As an Officer of the Court charged with duty to dispense justice, Judge Brawner-Cualing should have
proceeded with outmost(sic) care and diligence with the aforesaid ejectment case considering that her
jurisdiction over the Subject Property is being disputed. At the very least, she should have inquired by
herself as to the territorial jurisdiction or exact location of the Subject Property. But instead of doing
this, Judge Brawner-Cualing proceeded in deciding the case with recklessness.

13. In deciding the case, despite the fact that MCTC-Tuba has no jurisdiction to try and hear the
aforesaid ejectment case, Judge Brawner-Cualing has clearly showed gross partiality in favor of the
plaintiffs.

14. We have executed this joint complaint-affidavit in order to attest to the truth of all the foregoing and
to formally file a complaint against Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing for gross ignorance of the law.52

In her Comment, respondent judge asserts that contrary to complainants' assertion that they
immediately raised the issue of lack of jurisdiction as soon as they learned about it, "it was only in their
position paper, by way of a motion to dismiss, that complainants for the first time, questioned the
court's lack of jurisdiction."53 Thus,

12. It would also be erroneous for the petitioners herein to state in paragraph 554 of their Joint
Complaint Affidavit that it was only during the pendency of the ejectment case that they found out and
verified that the subject property was located in San Manuel, Pangasinan and not in Tuba, Benguet
because as early as August 26, 2010 in compliance by the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 302, it would appear
that they have already been raising the apparent location of the subject property to be in Pangasinan
and not in Tuba, Benguet in an earlier Malicious Mischief case filed against them by Ruby Giron ...
Nothing therefore would have precluded petitioners herein from amending their Answer to the
Complaint in Civil Case No. 302 to raise at the start the issue that the Court Lacked any jurisdiction over
the same because of the location of the subject property. It was therefore too late in the proceeding for
the petitioners to raise ground in their Position Paper. It would also be to the prejudice of the
respondent to be declared gross ignorance of the law based on the ground that was never first place
raised by petitioners.55 (Emphasis on the original)

Complainants oppose the assailed decision and Writ of Execution and claim that respondent judge has
no jurisdiction over the case.56 The disputed property is allegedly not within the jurisdiction of Tuba-
Sablan, Benguet but in Pangasinan.57 Complainants assert that while they have already brought the
matter to respondent judge's attention, they were nevertheless ignored.58
Contrary to complainants' claim, this issue was explicitly addressed by respondent judge in her
December 9, 2011 Decision which read:

As a final note, defendant's claim that this case should be dismissed as it would appear that the subject
parcel of land falls within the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of Pangasinan[.]

The Court however could not uphold this claim by the defendants because from the previous pleadings
as well as their dealings entered into in connection with the property they are possessing, they have
been representing themselves to be residents of Ansagan, Tuba, Benguet. Because of this
representation, defendants were able to secure loan from NIA-CAR or from the Province of Benguet
(Exhibits "1 ", "2", "3" and "4"). Defendants could not therefore state that they are under the territorial
jurisdiction of the Province of Pangasinan considering that with the dismissal of this case, it would
greatly favor them.

Moreover, the Land Classification Map appended to Exhibit "13" clearly states therein that "Municipal
boundaries are not established nor located on the ground but are merely indicated hereon as taken
from available references. Such political boundaries are for purposes of determining Administrative
Jurisdiction of Forest District affected."

Clearly, toclaim that the subject property is within the territorial jurisdiction of the Province of
Pangasinan concluding only on a map classifying the forest areas therein could not be accepted by the
Court without any further evidence tothat effect."59

Though there are opposing claims in this case, it is to be emphasized that in administrative proceedings,
the burden of proof lies with the complainants.60 Hence, the allegations in their complaints should be
proven by substantial evidence.61 Thus,

While the Court will never tolerate or condone any conduct, act, or omission that would violate the
norm of public accountability or diminish the people's faith in the judiciary, the quantum of proof
necessary for a finding of guilt in administrative cases is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence
as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion."62

III.

Similarly, complainants' assertion of respondent judge's manifest partiality against them cannot prosper.
Manifest partiality pertains to "a clear, notorious or plain inclination or predilection to favor one side
rather than the other."63 Thus, a mere imputation of bias and partiality against a judge is insufficient
because "bias and partiality can never be presumed."64

Since "bad faith or malice cannot be inferred simply because the judgment is adverse to a party,"65 it is
incumbent upon the complainants to prove that respondent judge was manifestly partial against them.
Their failure to prove this is fatal to their cause. Apart from their bare allegations, complainants offered
no other independent proof to validate this allegation.66
Complainants' failure to substantiate their claims in an administrative proceeding can cause the
dismissal of the case for lack of merit.67"In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption
that a judge has regularly performed his duties will prevail."68

WHEREFORE, this administrative complaint against Judge Marietta S. Brawner-Cualing is DISMISSED for
lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.