Mendova vs Afable December 4, 2002 || Sandoval- Gutierrez Facts: Abraham Mendova filed with the office of the Barangay

Chairman of Poblacion San Julian, Eastern Samar a complaint for slight physical injuries against Robert Palada. The parties failed to reach an amicable settlement at the level of the barangay, so Mendova filed a complaint with the MCTC of San Julian-Sulat, Eastern Samar. At the MCTC, respondent judge rendered a decision dismissing the case. According to the decision, the offense took place on February 15, 1998 while the complaint was filed with the court on May 4, 1998. Slight physical injuries, being a light offense, prescribe in two months. More than two months have elapsed from the date of the commission of the offense until the filing of the complaint, and so the offense has prescribed and the action must be dismissed. Consequently, Mendova filed with the Office of the Court Administrator against the respondent judge, alleging that in dismissing the case, respondent judge showed his ignorance of the law when he did not apply the provisions of Section 410 (c) of the Local Government Code, which pertains to the suspension of prescriptive period of offenses. In response, respondent judge admitted in his comment that his Decision was wrong and that he had a mental lapse due to heavy workload. Nevertheless, the OCA found respondent guilty and recommended that he be fined (PhP 3,000.00) with a warning that a commission of similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Issue: WON respondent judge is liable administratively for dismissing the criminal case on the ground of prescription Held//Ratio: No. The Court has repeatedly stressed that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every irregular or erroneous order or decision issued by a judge where a judicial remedy is available, such as an MR. Besides, to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position doubly unbearable. It is only where the error is so gross, deliberate and malicious, or incurred with evident bad faith that administrative sanctions may be imposed against the erring judge. In the case at bar, the records show that Mendova did not bother at all to file an MR. No reason was advanced why complainant failed to do so. Thus, the administrative complaint is premature. Moreover, pursuant to Section 410(c) of the Local Government Code, the prescriptive period is interrupted upon filing of the complaint with the barangay, and resumes upon receipt by the complainant of the Certification to File Action issued by the Pangkat Secretary of the barangay. In the present case, records fail to show when the complainant received the Certification to File Action. Complainant failed to present proof of his receipt of the Barangay Certification and so clearly, he cannot now fault respondent judge for dismissing the case on the ground of prescription. While respondent judge admitted his mistake, such may not be considered ignorance of law. It can only be an error of judgment.