UP Law F2021 027 Victory Liner v.

Bellosillo
Civil Procedure Doctrine of Judicial Stability 2004 Davide, Jr.

SUMMARY

Victory Liner, Inc. (VLI) filed a complaint before the Office of Court Administrator against Judge Bellosillo,
alleging, among others, gross ignorance of the law when Bellosillo required posting of P50,000 bail for the
release of an impounded bus of VLI involved in reckless imprudence case. OCA found that the Judge erred in
requiring the bail for the release of bus and recommended to the SC fine of P20,000 (including other
offenses). VLI sought a ruling on the propriety of bail posting for vehicles involved in reckless imprudence
cases thru this administrative complaint. The SC refused to rule on this, saying that the issue should have
been raised in proper court and the hierarchy of courts must be respected.

FACTS

 Mar. 2, 2000 – a Victory Liner bus accidentally hit Marciana Bautista Morales who died the following
day in Dinalupihan, Bataan. VLI shouldered all the funeral and burial expenses of the deceased;
 An undertaking was entered into by the VLI and the heirs of the victim. A “Release of Claim” and
“Affidavit of Desistance” were executed in favor of VLI and its erring driver Reino dela Cruz;
 However, a “Pinagsamang Salaysay” of certain heirs (who were also signatories in the undertaking)
were earlier filed against the driver dela Cruz. Based on the Salaysay a criminal complaint was filed
with the MCTC of Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan, for reckless imprudence resulting in homicide;
 A warrant of arrest was issued by Judge Bellosillo against dela Cruz, and fixed his bail at P50,000 cash;
 He also directed the Chief of Police to immediately impound the bus which could be released only
upon the posting of a cash bond in the amount of P50,000;
 Mar. 30, 2000 – VLI filed a Manifestation that it, under protest, deposited with the court P50,000 for
the release of its bus and thereafter immediately sought its release;
 Apr. 4, 2000 - VLI filed with the respondent Judge Bellosillio’s court a petition to declare null and void
the order directing it to post bond for the release of its bus. This was denied;
 Further, Judge Bellosillo had the bus reimpounded by the police;
 Apr. 18, 2000 – Judge Bellosillo acted on VLI’s Manifestation and released the bus;
 VLI filed a verified complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Bellosillo
claiming, among others, that the judge was guilty of gross ignorance of the law in impounding its bus
and requiring it to post a cash bond for its release;
 Judge Bellosillo denied the allegations, averring that posting of bail for release of vehicles involve in
reckless imprudence cases was practiced by other Judges;
 The OCA Consultant retired Justice Narciso T. Atienza sided with VLI and found that impounding and
requirement of P50,000 cash bail for release of bus erroneous;
 Other allegations (not relevant to the topic but for purposes of reference), and their corresponding SC
findings, include:
o grave abuse of authority when it revoked the surety bond of one of VLI’s driver Edwin Serrano in
Criminal Case No. 9373 – GUILTY
o knowingly rendered an unjust and oppressive order when he increased the bond to P350,000 and
required that it be posted in cash – GUILTY
o gravely abused his authority when he ordered the police authorities of Dinalupihan, Bataan, to file
a case against Reino de la Cruz – NOT GUILTY
o inaction or dereliction of duty in failing to resolve, despite the lapse of two months – NOT GUILTY

RATIO

W/N the administrative case filed before OCA is proper remedy to determine the propriety of
posting bail for the release of VLI’s bus
No.

Citing Lacadin v. Mangino and Cañas v. Castigador, this administrative case is not the right forum to
determine the issue of the legality of respondent's order requiring VLI to post a cash bond for the release of
its impounded vehicle. VLI should have raised that issue in the proper courts and not directly to SC
and much less by way of an administrative case. There is after all a hierarchy of courts. As we have
said in Santiago v. Vasquez, the propensity of litigants and lawyers to disregard the hierarchy of
courts in our judicial system by seeking a ruling directly from us must be put to a halt.

The Court also cited that the VLI’s counsel failed to appear on the set hearing dates, and reportedly refused
to accept or receive from court personnel notices of hearing and court orders. And, according to respondent
Judge, he (VLI's counsel) never appeared and continued not to appear before the respondent for reasons
known only to him. VLI cannot, therefore, resurrect that issue directly before us, and much less
through a mere verified administrative complaint or motion to resolve.

To allow VLI to raise that issue before us and obtain a ruling thereon directly from us through an
administrative case would be to countenance a disregard of the established rules of procedure and
of the hierarchy of courts. VLI would thus be able to evade compliance with the requirements inherent in
the ling of a proper petition, including the payment of docket fees. Hence, we shall shun from passing upon
that issue in this case.

FALLO

WHEREFORE, for gross ignorance of the law and oppression in imposing excessive cash bail bonds on Reino
de la Cruz in Criminal Case No. 10512 and Edwin Serrano in Criminal Case No. 9373, respondent Judge
Reynaldo B. Bellosillo is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) to be taken from
his retirement benefits.

SO ORDERED.