1 R\-0

'' .: '

~epublic of tbe .Jlbilippine~

~upreme <tr:ourt
;!ffilantla

FIRST DIVISION

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a

Resolution dated January 23, 2019 which reads as follows:

"OCA IPI No. 15-4473-RTJ (CARLOS GAUDENCIO M.

MANALAC, Complainant, v. JUDGE EMMANUEL A. SILVA,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 4, MAR/VELES,
BATAAN, Respondent.) -The Court resolves the verified Complaint-
Affidavit1 dated September 30, 2015 charging Judge Emmanuel Silva,
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 4,
Mariveles, Bataan with gross ignorance of the law, bias and partiality,
grave misconduct, and grave abuse of judicial authority in handling
Civil Case No. 1068-ML.2

Antecedents

Carlos Gaudencio M. Mafialac filed the present administrative

complaint in his capacity as the general manager and duly authorized
representative of Philippine Investment One (SPV-AMC), Inc. (PI
One), a domestic corporation engaged in the business of acquiring or
purchasing assets from banking and financial institutions. He alleged
that on August 10, 2007, the Development Bank of the Philippines
(DBP) irrevocably assigned all its rights, titles, and interests over the
loan obligation of Diversified Plastic Film System, Inc. (Diversified)
to PI One. On November 25, 2014, PI One filed a Petition for
Foreclosure of the Mortgage Trust Indenture (MTI) for failure of
Diversified to pay its obligation for a period of 18 years.

A day before the scheduled foreclosure sale on February 13,

2015, Diversified filed a complaint for injunction with application for

- over - six (6) pages ...

87 & 123
I

1
Rollo, pp. 1-18.
2
Id. at 225-228 ..A civil action for injunction and damages entitled "Diversified Plastic Film
System, Inc., plaintiffversus Ex Officio Sheriff Regional Trial Court Mariveles, et al., defendants."

1J
 RESOLUTION 2 OCA IPI No. 15-4473-RTJ
January 23. 2019

temporary restraining order (TRO) and/or preliminary injunction with

,,~ ..• ,.,,. •t· ~e RT<;. Branch 4 being presided by Judge Silva. On the same day,
·;;.i'~· ~1'.,:'~' "'~'~e· ·~iJ,.va issued a 72-hour TRO in favor of Diversified. The
1
/ 1i 1 ! • respondeµt . judge set the hearings for the writ of preliminary
I ; t on
injunction February 16 and 24, 2015. When the 72-hour TRO
' ;~.~.. ~pjredrauc(no injunction had yet been issued, PI One reapplied for
the holding of the foreclosure sale which was rescheduled on March
23, 2015 and April 10, 2015.

PI One filed a memorandum on the application for a writ of

preliminary injunction and subsequently a motion for inhibition
against Judge Silva. In separate Orders dated March 19, 2015, Judge
Silva denied the motion for inhibition and granted the writ of
preliminary injunction.

In granting the TRO and the application for issuance of the writ
of preliminary injunction, the complainant maintained that Judge
Silva had violated Supreme Court Circular A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 (Re:
Procedure in Extrajudicial or Judicial Foreclosure of Real Estate
Mortgages) which prohibits the issuance of an injunctive relief on an
allegation that the loan had been paid or is not delinquent; and that
Judge Silva did not consider the fact that Diversified failed to comply
with the requirements provided in the said circular and that some of
the mortgaged machinery and equipment were missing. As such,
Judge Silva was not only grossly ignorant the circular but had also
been guilty of extreme partiality and dishonesty.

In his defense, 3 Judge Silva denied the charges against him. He

asserted that he did not violate SC Circular A.M. No. 99-10-05-0
because the circular did not apply to the complainant's civil case; that
the complaint for injunction was anchored on PI One's lack of
authority to foreclose the mortgage and not nonpayment of obligation;
that the MTI claimed that the duty to foreclose belonged to All Asia
Capital Trust Corporation (All Asia) as trustee; that on September 2,
2015, PI One filed a petition for appointment as trustee, thereby
impliedly admitting that it was not the trustee under the MTI.

On the basis of the parties' submissions, the Office of the Court

Administrator (OCA) submitted its evaluation report and
recommended that the administrative complaint against Judge Silva be
dismissed. The OCA found that the acts subject of the complaint
refers to the exercise of judicial discretion on the part of Judge Silva.
The OCA also opined that assuming Judge Silva had issued an

- over -
87 & 123

Id. at 203-221. Comment dated December 3, 2015.

~
,.
RESOLUTION 3 OCA IPI No. 15-4473-RTJ
January 23. 2019

erroneous decision or interpretation of the SC Circular and the

provisions of the MTI, he cannot be held administratively liable
unless there is proof that he was motivated by bad faith, malice,
corruption, or dishonesty when he issued the assailed Order. 4

Issue

Is Judge Emmanuel B. Silva liable for gross ignorance of the

law, bias and partiality, grave misconduct, and grave abuse of judicial
authority in issuing the Orders dated March 19, 2015?

Ruling

We adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA.

Indubitably, the complaint against Judge Silva centered on the

propriety of the Order issued on March 19, 2015 5 which granted the
application for the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction in
favor of Diversified and which the respondent Judge issued in the
exercise of his judicial functions.

In Humol v. Clapis, Jr., 6 We said that the propriety of issuing a

writ of preliminary injunction cannot be questioned in an
administrative case since this is a judicial issue that will require an
evaluation of the evidence presented during the trial and should be
threshed out through the appropriate judicial remedy and not through
an administrative action. 7 Moreover, an administrative or disciplinary
complaint is not the proper remedy to assail the judicial acts of
magistrates of the law, particularly those related to their adjudicative
functions; 8 any error should be corrected through appropriate judicial
remedies. 9 Ordinary remedies include a motion for reconsideration or
an appeal, while extraordinary remedies can be the special civil
actions of certiorari, prohibition or mandamus, a motion for
inhibition, or a petition for change of venue, if applicable. 10

The complainant herein alleged that Judge Silva should be

liable for gross ignorance of the law, bias, partiality, grave
misconduct and grave abuse of judicial authority when he issued the
TRO and granted the application for preliminary injunction in

- over -
87 & 123 l
cf

4
Id. at 485-488.
Id. at 192-195.
6
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2285, July 27, 2011, 654 SCRA 406.
Id. at 418.
Id.
9
In re Rallos, IPI Nos. 12-203-CA-J & 12-9-08-CA, December 10, 2013, 711 SCRA 673, 690.
10
Supra note 5, at 419.

\.J
 RESOLUTION 4 OCA IPI No. 15-4473-RTJ
January 23. 2019

violation of SC Circular A.M. No. 99-10-05-0. Judge Silva however

countered that he issued the questioned Order on the basis of his
findings that ( 1) the SC Circular does not apply because the
complaint was not based on payment or non-deliquency and (2) that
PI One was not authorized to institute the petition for extrajudicial
foreclosure sale.

We find merit in Judge Silva' arguments.

To warrant a finding of ignorance of the law and abuse of

authority, the error must be so gross and patent as to produce an
inference of ignorance or bad faith or that the judge knowingly
rendered an unjust decision. 11 In here, we do not find any taint of
patent abuse of authority or gross ignorance of the law on the part of
Judge Silva in issuing the March 19, 2015 Orders.

We likewise agree with the OCA that even if Judge Silva made
an erroneous interpretation of SC Circular A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 and
the provisions of the MTI relative thereto, he will still not be
administratively liable. As we explained in another case:

[W]e reiterate that a judge's failure to correctly interpret the law or

to properly appreciate the evidence presented does not necessarily
incur administrative liability, for to hold him administratively
accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders,
assuming he has erred, will be nothing short of harassment and will
make his position doubly unbearable. His judicial office will then
be rendered untenable, because no one called upon to try the facts
or to interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be
infallible in his judgment. Administrative sanction and criminal
liability should be visited on him only when the error is so gross,
deliberate and malicious, or is committed with evident bad faith, or
only in clear cases of violations by him of the standards and norms
of propriety and good behavior prescribed by law and the rules of
procedure, or fixed and defined by pertinent jurisprudence. 12

Moreover, there should be proof of acts or conduct of the judge

clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before the latter can be
branded the stigma of being biased and partial. Good faith and
absence of malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations are

- over -
87 & 123

11
Bengzon v. Adaoag, A.M. No. MTJ-95-1045 (Resolution), November 28, 1995, 250 SCRA
344, 348.
12
In re Fabiana, A.M. No. CA-13-51-J, July 2, 2013, 700 SCRA 348, 361, citing Re: Verified
Complaint of Engr. Oscar L. Ongjoco, Chairman of the Board/CEO of FH-Gymn Multi-Purpose
and Transport Service Cooperative, against Hon. Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., Hon. Ramon M Bato, Jr.
and Hon. Fiorito S. Macalino, Associate Justice, Court of Appeals, A.M. OCA LP.I. No. 11-184-
CA-J, January 31, 2012, 664 SCRA 465, 475-476.

~
'. ..
RESOLUTION 5 OCA IPI No. 15-4473-RTJ
January 23. 2019

sufficient defenses in which a judge charged with ignorance of the law

can find refuge. 13

In the absence of any showing that improper motives or

corruption had actuated the respondent, he should be presumed to
have acted in utmost good faith in his interpretation of SC Circular
A.M. No. 99-10-05-0 and the provisions of the MTI relative thereto.
As such, he could not be held guilty of the charges imputed against
him.

WHEREFORE, We DISMISS the present administrative

complaint for lack of merit; and consider this administrative
complaint against Judge Emmanuel A. Silva as CLOSED and
TERMINATED.

The complaint-affidavit dated September 30, 2015 (with

enclosures) of Carlos Gaudencio M. Maiialac charging Judge
Emmanuel A. Silva with gross ignorance of the law, bias and
partiality, grave misconduct, and grave abuse of judicial authority
relative to Civil Case No. 1068-ML, entitled "Diversified Plastic Film
System, Inc. vs. Ex Officio Sheriff Regional Trial Court Mariveles,
Bataan, Sheriff Paladin E. Palad and Philippine Investment One
(SPV-AMC), Inc.;" the comment (with enclosures) of Judge
Emmanuel A. Silva on the complaint; the complainant's reply to
comment on the complaint; the complainant's manifestations dated
June 7, 2016, September 12, 2017 and October 12, 2017 (with
enclosures) relative to their complaint against Judge Silva; the
counter-manifestation dated January 11, 2018 of Judge Silva; the
complainant's urgent motion to resolve, requesting speedy resolution
of the instant administrative matter for the reasons stated therein; the
comment and counter-manifestation of Judge Emmanuel A. Silva to
the complainant's urgent motion to resolve; and the Report dated July
5, 2018 of the Office of the Court Administrator, are all NOTED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

LIBRAq'A C. BUENA~
Divisiori/Clerk of Court "'r!J.i.
87 & 123
- over -

13
Hilado v. Reyes, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1910, April 15, 2005, 456 SCRA 146, 163.

\J
RESOLUTION 6 OCA IPI No. 15-4473-RTJ
January 23. 2019

Mr. Carlos Gaudencio M. Mafialac Hon. Emmanuel A. Silva

Complainant Respondent-Presiding Judge
Unit 1615 Tower One, Stock Exchange Regional Trial Court, Branch 4
Plaza, Ayala Triangle, Ayala A venue Mariveles, 2105 Bataan
Cor. Paseo de Roxas
1226 Makati City Hon. Jose Midas P. Marquez (x)
Court Administrator
Hon. Raul B. Villanueva (x)
Hon. Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa
-Delorino (x)
Hon. Leo Tolentino Madrazo (x)
Deputy Court Administrators
Hon. Lilian Barribal-Co (x)
Hon. Maria Regina A. F. M. Ignacio (x)
Assistant Court Administrators
OCA, Supreme Court

Office of Administrative Services (x)

Legal Office (x)
Court Management Office (x)
Financial Management Office (x)
Docket & Clearance Division (x)
OCA, Supreme Court

Public Information Office (x)

Library Services (x)
Supreme Court
(For uploading pursuant to A.M.
No. 12-7-1-SC)

87 & 123
\J
UR

~tl