En Banc: Decision Decision
En Banc: Decision Decision
DECISION
PERLAS-BERNABE , J : p
In its Answer, 4 WWRAI averred that AMALI's project violated applicable zoning
ordinances; the licenses and permits secured therefor were irregular and unlawful; the
project is a nuisance; and EDSA should instead be utilized as the staging area of the
project. Apart from praying for the dismissal of the complaint, WWRAI interposed a
counterclaim for actual and exemplary damages, attorney's fees and costs of suit, and
prayed for a TRO and writ of preliminary mandatory injunction for AMALI to immediately
cease and desist with its project construction.
In this case, AMALI had already led a petition for review on certiorari 2 2 challenging
the questioned order of the respondent CA Justices, which is still pending nal action by
the Court. Consequently, a decision on the validity of the proceedings and propriety of the
orders of the respondent CA Justices in this administrative proceeding would be
premature. 2 3 Besides, even if the subject decision or portions thereof turn out to be
erroneous, administrative liability will only attach upon proof that the actions of the
respondent CA Justices were motivated by bad faith, dishonesty or hatred, or attended by
fraud or corruption, 2 4 which were not su ciently shown to exist in this case. Neither was
bias as well as 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
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
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. 2 5 Here, other than AMALI's bare and
self-serving claim that respondent CA Justices "conspired with WWRAI's counsel in
knowingly and in bad faith rendering an unjust judgment and in committing . . . other
misconduct," 2 6 no act clearly indicative of bias and partiality was alleged except for the
claim that respondent CA Justices misapplied the law and jurisprudence. Thus, the
presumption that the respondent judge has regularly performed his duties shall prevail.
Moreover, the matters raised are best addressed to the evaluation of the Court in the
resolution of AMALI's petition for review on certiorari.
Finally, resort to administrative disciplinary action prior to the nal resolution of the
judicial issues involved constitutes an abuse of court processes that serves to disrupt
rather than promote the orderly administration of justice and further clog the courts'
dockets. Those who seek relief from the courts must not be allowed to ignore basic legal
rules and abuse court processes in their efforts to vindicate their rights. 2 7
WHEREFORE , the Court DISMISSES the administrative complaint against the
Honorable Court of Appeals Associate Justices DANTON Q. BUESER, SESINANDO E.
VILLON AND RICARDO R. ROSARIO for utter lack of merit; and CAUTIONS complainant
AMA Land, Inc. against the ling of similar unfounded and baseless actions in the future,
WITH STERN WARNING that a repetition thereof shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Sereno, C.J., Carpio, Velasco, Jr., Leonardo-de Castro, Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo,
Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez, Mendoza, Reyes and Leonen, JJ., concur.
Brion, J., is on leave.
Footnotes
1.Rollo, p. 3. Namely: Canon 1, Section 1; Canon 2, Sections 1 and 2; Canon 3, Section 1; and
Canon 6, Section 3.
2.Id. at 65-79.
6.Id. at 189.
7.Id. at 125-135. Mentioned in the Order dated November 24, 2009. Penned by Acting Presiding
Judge Romulo SG. Villanueva.
8.Id. at 73. Mentioned in the CA Decision dated June 14, 2012.
9.Id. at 191-192.
10.Id. at 193-194.
11.Id. at 418-448. Penned by Associate Justice Francisco P. Acosta, with Justices Noel G.
Tijam and Marlene Gonzales-Sison, concurring, and Associate Justices Antonio L.
Villamor and Edwin D. Sorongon, dissenting.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
12. Id. at 80-122.
13.Id. at 407-414. Resolution dated March 29, 2012.
14.Id. at 197-199. Resolution dated June 10, 2011.
17.Supra note 2.
18.Id. at 470-505.
19.Maylas, Jr. v. Sese, 529 Phil. 594, 597 (2006); Bautista v. Abdulwahid, A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-
97-CA-J, May 2, 2006, 488 SCRA 428, 434.
20.Monticalbo v. Maraya, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-09-2197, April 13, 2011, 648 SCRA 573, 583, citing
Flores v. Abesamis, 341 Phil. 299, 313 (1997).
21.530 Phil. 441, 452, 453 (2006).
27.Oliveros v. Sison, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2050, October 29, 2008, 570 SCRA 148, 154.