Case Digest: ATTY. HERMOGENES DATUIN, JR. v. JUDGE ANDRES B. SORIANO, Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan

ATTY. HERMOGENES DATUIN, JR. v. JUDGE ANDRES B. SORIANO,

Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan

391 SCRA 1 (2002)

Notatu dignum is the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judge’s functions, hence, bias, prejudice and even undue interest cannot be presumed.

The case arose from a complaint for a sum of money filed by Olivia Natividad against Teresita Lopez before the Regional Trial Court of Malolos, Bulacan (RTC) which was raffled to Judge Andres B. Soriano (Judge Soriano). Atty. Hermogenes Datuin, Jr. (Atty. Datuin) appeared as counsel of the defendant in the said case. Subsequently, Atty. Datuin filed a Motion for Disqualification against Judge Soriano for being partial and bias by shouting at Complainant Datuin without just cause, for ordering that the buyer of the parcel of land in dispute must first appear before him and for issuing an order without reciting the details thereof.

ISSUE:

Whether or not the complaint against Judge Soriano warrants punitive action from the Supreme Court

HELD:

Notatu dignum is the presumption of regularity in the performance of a judge’s functions, hence, bias, prejudice and even undue interest cannot be presumed, especially weighed against a judge’s sacred allegation under oath of office to administer justice without respect to any person and do equal right to the poor and the rich.

It is settled that in administrative proceedings the complainant has the burden of proving, in general by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint. This complainant failed to discharge that Judge Soriano yelled at him, absent evidence as to its content as well as the circumstances under which it was made, its import cannot be appreciated. The argument that Judge Soriano will not be asking that the buyer be presented to him if he had no hidden agenda is unadulterated speculation, hence, deserves no weight. In respondent Judge Soriano’s case, he has explained that his Order was not the pre-trial order as he was wont to issue one only after the transcription of the stenographic notes taken during the pre-trial was completed to make sure that all the matters therein taken up are reflected in the order.

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. For a judge may not be held administratively accountable for every erroneous order or decision he renders. To hold otherwise would be to render judicial office untenable, for no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the process of administering justice can be infallible in his judgment.