DAMASO FLORES v HON. BERNARDO ABESAMIS, A.M. No. SC-96-1, July 10 1997 |275 scra 301

FACTS: Flores was the defendant in a civil case which involved an admitted indebtedness of Flores to the plaintiff, Rolando Ligon, of about 1.8 million pesos. A judgment based on compromise was rendered by the late Judge Castro, providing for payment of the debt in stated installments and, in the event of default, acceleration of the obligation and the surrender of the “Paranaque Cockpit” (held by Flores under lease) to Ligon for the latter to manage and operate.

The Trial court promulgated an order declaring Flores to have breached the compromise judgment, the writ of execution was issued. Flores appealed the order to the CA to nullify the writ and filed certiorari action in the same court. The decision of the CA favors Flores –vindicating his right to possess the cockpit on a finding that he had not infringed the compromise judgment. Flores asked the Trial court to restore possession of the cockpit, this was granted by Judge Abesamis (April 5, 1988) but only on April 20, 1988 because the latter (a) had to wait for the mittimus, which was not received until April 13, 1988, and (b) had to study the pleadings filed by Ligon and Flores on the issue.

Despite Judge Abesamis’ order in response to Flores motions Flores was still unable to regain possession of the cockpit. This is due to Ligon’s actions in the CA, which resulted in failure. Judge Abesamis received the notice of judgment and ordered issuance of an alias writ of execution to revert possession of the cockpit to Flores. But enforcement of the alias writ of execution was again effectively delayed by still other circumstances.

Although aware of these circumstances precluding enforcement of Judge Abesamis’ order for reversion of the cockpit to him –Flores filed criminal and administrative case against the Judge. These cases were dismissed by the CA. But two years after promulgation of the resolution, Flores filed once more in the Office of Ombudsman a complaint against Judge Abesamis. The case was dismissed for lack of merit, and Flores was ordered to explain why he should not be disciplinarily dealt with for willful disregard of the court’s judgment and orders and those of CA; abuse of processes of the courts and forum-shopping.

ISSUE: WON Flores abuse the process of the courts and guilty of forum-shopping.

RULING: The law provides ample remedies against errors or irregularities being committed by a Trial court in the exercise of its jurisdiction. The ordinary remedies against errors or irregularities which may be regarded as normal in nature include a motion for reconsideration, and appeal. The extraordinary remedies against errors and irregularities which may be deemed extraordinary in character are inter alia special civil action for certiorari, prohibition or mandamus or a motion for inhibition.

The established doctrine and policy is that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against Judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. Resort to and exhaustion of these judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, are pre-requisites for the taking of other measures against the persons of the judges concerned, whether civil, administrative or criminal nature. It is only after judicial remedies have been exhausted and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality, that the door to an inquiry into his criminal, civil or administrative liability may be said to have opened or closed.

Flores is more than preponderantly shown by the evidence to have, more than once: (a) instituted criminal as well as administrative proceedings against Judge Abesamis which completely he knew to be completely without basis in fact; (b) resorted to administrative and criminal prosecution contemporaneously with, and prior to exhaustion of, judicial remedies against the acts complained of; (c) engaged in forum-shopping. He was held guilty of abuse of the process or proceedings of the courts, and of improper conduct or degrade the administration of justice (Section 3,Rule 71 of the rules of court).