G.R. No. 101041.

 November 13, 1991. *

54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
HON. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, petitioner, vs. HON. 2 ANNOTATED
JUDGE BERNARDO LL. SALAS and GEORGE CARLOS,
respondents. Villamor vs. Salas
through the use of derogatory and contemptous language before the
G.R. No. 101296. November 13, 1991. *
court,” and sentenced each of them to suffer the penalty of
imprisonment for five (5) days and to pay a fine of P500.
HON. JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, petitioner, vs. ANTONIO
T. GUERRERO and HON. PEARY G. ALEONAR, Presiding Judge Carlos immediately filed in this Court a petition for certiorari
with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction
of RTC, Branch 21, Region VII, Cebu City, respondents.
against the Judge (G.R. Nos. 82238-42). We promptly restrained
Judges; Judges of co-equal branch may not interfere with each Judge Villamor from enforcing his Order of Contempt against Carlos
other’s judgments.—The sole issue here is: whether or not Judges Aleonar and and Attorney Guerrero. On November 13, 1989, we annulled the
Salas may take cognizance of the actions for damages against Judge Villamor contempt order. (See pp. 26-34, Rollo of G.R. No. 101041.)
for allegedly having rendered an unjust order of direct contempt against Back to Civil Case No. CEB-6478; Judge Villamor filed a
Carlos and Attorney Guerrero which this Court subsequently annulled. The motion to dismiss the complaint for lack of jurisdiction. The trial
answer is no. x x x. To allow respondent Judges Aleonar and Salas to proceed court granted the motion. The order of dismissal was affirmed by the
with the trial of the actions for damages against the petitioner, a co-equal Court of Appeals (CA-G.R. CV No. 20657, June 26, 1990). Carlos
judge of a co-equal court, would in effect permit a court to review and
interfere with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has no appellate
appealed to this Court which also denied the petition. (p. 125, Rollo
jurisdiction or power of review. The various branches of a Court of First of G.R. No. 101296.)
Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) being co-equal, may not interfere Unfazed by these setbacks, Carlos and his counsel, Attorney
with each other’s cases, judgments and orders (Parco vs. Court of Appeals, Antonio Guerrero, filed separate complaints for damages against
111 SCRA 262). Judge Villamor for knowingly rendering an unjust order of contempt.
Same;  Liability of judges for erroneous decision.—A judge is not Attorney Guerrero’s complaint for damages (Civil Case No.
liable for an erroneous decision in the absence of malice or wrongful conduct CEB-8802) was raffled to Branch 21, Regional Trial Court, Cebu
in rendering it (Barroso vs. Arche, 67 SCRA 161). City, presided over by Judge Peary G. Aleonar. Carlos’ complaint for
damages was docketed as Civil Case No. CEB-8823 and raffled to
PETITIONS for certiorari to review the decisions of the Regional Branch 8, Regional Trial Court of Cebu City presided over by Judge
Trial court of Cebu City, Br. 21 and 8. Bernardo LL. Salas.
On March 30, 1990, Judge Villamor filed a motion to
The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court. dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-8802 but it was denied by Judge
     Ramon Ve Salazar for petitioner. Aleonar (p. 33, Rollo of G.R. No. 101296).
     Antonio T. Guerrero for private respondent. Hence, this petition for certiorari and prohibition with restraining
     Henry R. Savellon for respondent. order docketed as G.R. No. 101296.
_______________ On September 19, 1991, this Court issued a temporary
restraining order against Judge Aleonar to stop him from proceeding
*
 FIRST DIVISION. in Civil Case No. CEB-8802 (pp. 45-46, Rollo of G.R. No. 101296).
On May 20, 1991, a Manifestation was filed by Judge Villamor
541
praying Judge Salas to dismiss Civil Case No. CEB-8823 but the
VOL. 203, NOVEMBER 13, 541 motion was denied by respondent Judge on July 2, 1991 (pp. 13-16,
1991 Rollo of G.R. No. 101041).
Hence, this second petition for certiorari and prohibition with
Villamor vs. Salas 543
VOL. 203, NOVEMBER 13, 543
GRIÑO-AQUINO, J.:
1991
In 1977, Civil Case No. B-398 (Gloria Naval vs. George Carlos) for Villamor vs. Salas
recovery of ownership of a parcel of coconut land was filed and restraining order (G.R. No. 101041).
subsequently raffled to the sala of the petitioner, Judge Adriano On August 21, 1991, a Resolution was issued by this Court: 1)
Villamor. While the civil case was pending there, respondent Carlos temporarily restraining Judge Salas from further proceeding in Civil
filed Criminal Cases Nos. N-989, N-990, N-991, N-992 and N-993 Case No. CEB-8823; and 2) granting the petitioner’s prayer that this
for qualified theft against Gloria Naval and her helpers. The criminal case be consolidated with G.R. No. 101296 (pp. 37-39, Rollo of G.R.
cases were also assigned to the sala of Judge Villamor. No. 101041).
Due to the pendency of Civil Case No. B-398, the criminal cases The sole issue here is: whether or not Judges Aleonar and Salas
were temporarily archived. may take cognizance of the actions for damages against Judge
After trial in Civil Case No. B-398, a decision was rendered in Villamor for allegedly having rendered an unjust order of direct
favor of Naval who was declared the lawful owner and possessor of contempt against Carlos and Attorney Guerrero which this Court
the disputed land. Carlos was ordered to vacate the land. subsequently annulled.
Thereafter, respondent Carlos, through counsel, moved to The answer is no.
activate the archived criminal cases. Having declared Naval the As very aptly held by this Court in a Resolution it issued in
lawful owner and possessor of the contested land in Civil Case No. connection with a previous case filed by respondent Carlos against
B-398, Judge Villamor dismissed the criminal cases against her and Judge Villamor, over a similar action for “Damages and Attorney’s
her co-accused. Fees Arising From Rendering an Unjust Judgment,” in dismissing the
Judge Villamor likewise granted execution pending appeal of his five (5) criminal cases for qualified theft which he (respondent
decision in Civil Case No. B-398. This order was challenged by Carlos) had filed against Gloria P. Naval and others—
Carlos in the Court of Appeals and in this Court, both without “Indeed, no Regional Trial Court can pass upon and scrutinize, and much less
success. declare as unjust a judgment of another Regional Trial Court and sentence the
Afterwards, Carlos filed an administrative case, A.M. No. RTJ- judge thereof liable for damages without running afoul with the principle that
87-105, against Judge Villamor, charging him with having issued only the higher appellate courts, namely, the Court of Appeals and the
Supreme Court, are vested with authority to review and correct errors of the
illegal orders and an unjust decision in Civil Case No. B-398. On trial courts.” (George D. Carlos vs. CA, G.R. No. 95560, November 5, 1990;
November 21, 1988, this Court, in an En Banc resolution, summarily p. 125, Rollo of G.R. No. 101296.)
dismissed the administrative case.
Dissatisfied with the outcome of the administrative case, To allow respondent Judges Aleonar and Salas to proceed with the
respondent Carlos filed a civil action for damages (Civil Case No. trial of the actions for damages against the petitioner, a co-equal
CEB-6478) against Judge Villamor for knowingly rendering an judge of a co-equal court, would in effect permit a court to review
unjust judgment when he dismissed the five (5) criminal cases against and interfere with the judgment of a co-equal court over which it has
Naval, et al. no appellate jurisdiction or power of review. The various branches of
The summons in Civil Case No. CEB-6478 was served upon a Court of First Instance (now the Regional Trial Court) being co-
Judge Villamor on December 10, 1987. The next day (December 11, equal, may not interfere with each other’s cases, judgments and
1987), instead of answering the complaint, Judge Villamor issued in orders (Parco vs. Court of Appeals, 111 SCRA 262).
Criminal Cases Nos. N-0989 to 0993 an order of direct contempt This Court has already ruled that only after the Appellate Court,
against Carlos and his lawyer. Attorney Antonio T. Guerrero, “for in a final judgment, has found that a trial judge’s errors were
degrading the respect and dignity of the court committed deliberately and in bad faith may a charge of
542 544
54 SUPREME COURT REPORTS
4 ANNOTATED
Villamor vs. Salas
knowingly rendering an unjust decision be levelled against the latter
(Garcia vs. Alconcel, 111 SCRA 178; Sta. Maria vs. Ubay, 87 SCRA
179; Gahol vs. Riodique, 64 SCRA 494).
Nowhere in this Court’s decision annulling Judge Villamor’s
order of direct contempt (G.R. Nos. 82238-42, November 13, 1989)
can there be found a declaration that the erroneous order was
rendered maliciously or with conscious and deliberate intent to
commit an injustice. In fact, a previous order of direct contempt
issued by Judge Villamor against Carlos’ former counsel was
sustained by this Court (Jaynes C. Abarrientos, et al. vs. Judge
Villamor, G.R. No. 82237, June 1, 1988).
At most, the order of direct contempt which we nullified may
only be considered an error of judgment for which Judge Villamor
may not be held criminally or civilly liable to the respondents.
A judge is not liable for an erroneous decision in the absence of
malice or wrongful conduct in rendering it (Barroso vs. Arche, 67
SCRA 161).
WHEREFORE, the consolidated petitions for certiorari are
GRANTED, Civil Cases Nos. CEB-8802 and CEB-8823,
respectively, pending in the salas of respondents Judge Peary G.
Aleonar and Judge Bernardo LL. Salas, are hereby dismissed. The
temporary restraining orders issued by this Court in these cases are
hereby made permanent. No costs.
SO ORDERED.
     Narvasa, (Chairman), Cruz, Feliciano and Medialdea,
JJ., concur.

Petitions granted.