U.S.

Supreme Court
Alzua v. Johnson, 231 U.S. 106 (1913)
Alzua v. Johnson
No. 306
ot!on to a"rm su#m!tte$ %&to#er 2', 1913
(e&!$e$ Novem#er 10, 1913
231 U.S. 106
ERROR TO THE SUPREME COURT
OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS
Syllabus
This court is slow to revise the judgment of the highest court of a
Territory on matters of local administration.
Judges of United States courts are not liable to civil actions for their
judicial acts. Bradley v. Fisher 13 Wall. 335.
The rincile of immunity of judges from civil action for their official
acts is so dee!seated in the system of "merican jurisrudence that
this #ourt will regard it having been carried into the $hiliine %slands
as soon as the "merican #ourts were established therein. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
$age &31 U. S. 1'(
The immunity of judges of the Sureme #ourt of the $hiliine %slands
from civil action for official acts is the same as that of judges of the
United States.
"ct )o.1*' of the $hiliine #ommission did not imose any liability to
civil actions for official acts on any judge of the Sureme #ourt of the
$hiliine %slands+ that act related only to inferior judges.
" statute such as that involved in this case, roviding that no judge
shall be liable to civil action for official acts done in good faith, will not
be construed as rendering such judges liable to civil action for acts
done in bad faith by imlication.
!uaere whether the $hiliine #ommission has ower to enact
legislation ma-ing any judge liable to civil action for official acts.
&1 $hil. 3'. affirmed.
The facts are stated in the oinion.
/0. JUST%#1 234/1S delivered the oinion of the #ourt.
This is a suit brought by the laintiffs in error against a Justice of the
Sureme #ourt of the $hiliine %slands. %ts allegations, much
abridged, are as follows5 the laintiff "l6ua had a judgment, in cause
)o. 3&(7, declared to be a first lien uon two stores, among other
things, of /artine6, widow of Soler, and 0iu, the judgment debtors+ the
sheriff levied+ two Solers, sons of /artine6, demanded that the sheriff
dismiss the levy, as they were owners of the stoc- levied uon+ the
laintiff "l6ua gave the sheriff a bond, on 3ctober 17, 1*'5, and
thereuon the sheriff roceeded to advertise and sell the roerty
concerned. 3n the same 3ctober 17, the above!mentioned Solers
brought chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
$age &31 U. S. 1'.
suit 8)o. 7'1(9 against the sheriff and the resent laintiff, "l6ua,
alleging that the Solers owned and were entitled to ossession of the
roerty and raying for an injunction and damages. The trial court
decided for the sheriff, and "l6ua and the Solers aealed to the
sureme court. 3n /arch &(, 1*'(, that court, including the
defendant, affirmed the decision, ostoning a statement of the
grounds, and ordered judgment in twenty days and a return of the
record ten days thereafter. The term ended on /arch 31. %n vacation,
on "ril ., the defendant, without consulting the other judges,
changed the judgment of affirmance to one of reversal, and gave
orders accordingly+ so that, on July &*, the record was returned to the
court below with judgment reversed. The defendant then reared a
decision, filed Setember 17, which was signed by five justices,
including the defendant, and, with intent to injure "l6ua, falsely stated
therein that the Solers were referred creditors of /artine6 and 0iu,
well -nowing that they alleged themselves to be owners, and that
/artine6 and 0iu were not arties to the suit, and could not be bound
by the decision. )o final judgment has been rendered in the cause.
3n "ugust &&, 1*'(, the Solers brought another suit, )o. 5(1*,
against the sheriff, "l6ua, her husband and the other obligors on the
bond given to the sheriff, to which /artine6 and 0iu afterwards were
made arties, alleging that the Solers had a referred credit in the
reviously mentioned roerty. 3n )ovember &*, the court dismissed
the suit as to all but /artine6, who confessed liability, and entered
judgment against her. The Solers aealed to the sureme court, and
the case was submitted to si: judges, including the defendant. The
defendant reared a decision, and, with intent to injure the laintiff,
set forth further false statements, vi". that, in the demand on the
sheriff that he dismiss the levy, the guardian ad li#e$ of the Solers
alleged that their claim was a chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
$age &31 U. S. 1'*
referred claim, whereas they claimed as owners and artners+ that
the sureme court had decided in the former suit, )o. 7'1(, that the
Solers had a referred credit for $. *,.;..&*, whereas the defendant
-new that the decision in 7'1( had not been leaded or ut in
evidence+ that the cause )o. 5(1* was brought uon the bond for the
above sum together with damages, etc., . 11,';.+ the defendant,
-nowing that the sheriff, acting sheriff, /artine6, and 0iu were also
defendants, and that the first named sum alone was in issue and no
damages roved+ that the cause )o. 5(1* was instituted on 3ctober 1,
1*'(, well -nowing that it was begun on "ugust &&, before, not after,
the last decision 8of Setember 179 in the former case+ that the record
in )o. 5(1* shows that the bond was given to the sheriff after issue of
an injunction in )o. 7'1(, whereas it does not, and finally that the
sureties on the bond had bound themselves thereby to resond to the
Solers for the amount of the claim that the Solers had against /artine6
and 0iu, whereas the bond was given to the sheriff, and the Solers
were not arties to it.
The declaration goes on to allege that, with the same intent, the
defendant did not discuss the actual <uestions or evidence+ that he
obtained the signatures of the other judges uon his reresentation
that the decision set forth an imartial and fair statement of the case,
he -nowing the contrary, and further, that Justice 1lliott, who sat at
the hearing, did not sign the decision, and was not informed of it. %t
further alleges that defendant omitted the names of /artine6 and 0iu,
and directed the cler- to enter judgment against the other defendants
only, -nowing who were arties and what had been the judgment
below. Thereafter, on =ebruary ., 1*1', ursuant to the decision and
defendant>s orders, judgment was entered against "l6ua and three
others for $. 11,';., with interest, on the ground that the Solers were
creditors of /artine6 and 0iu, and referred to "l6ua, although it is
said /artine6 chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
$age &31 U. S. 11'
and 0iu were absolved by the judgment. "verments are reiterated that
the defendant erformed all the acts alleged in relation to )os. 7'1(
and 5(1* wrongfully, with intent to injure the laintiff, with -nowledge
of the facts set forth, and that such -nowledge aears from
insection of the decisions in )os. 7'1( and 5(1*. 1:ecution issued,
and the resent laintiffs aid the judgment in 5(1*, but to do so had
to sell their roerty at a great sacrifice. The laintiffs therefore see-
judgment for the actual value of the roerty sold, the income that
would have been reali6ed, and unitive damages !! $. 115,''' in all. "
demurrer to the declaration was sustained by both courts below, and
the laintiffs being unable to better their case by amendment,
judgment was entered and the comlaint dismissed.
"bridged once more, this comlaint is that the defendant, without
jurisdiction, entered a judgment against the laintiff, contrary to an
order of the full court, and, in the oinion by which the full court
ratified the change, made a false statement of fact+ that, in the
oinion of the full court in a second suit, he inserted various false
statements, including one attributing to the first judgment an effect
that it could not have in the circumstances, all with full -nowledge and
intent to injure the laintiff, which -nowledge aears from insection
of the oinions, and that the laintiff had to ay the second judgment
at a sacrifice.
%t is aarent that there are other difficulties beside the immunity of
the judge in the way of such a suit. %n the first lace, the Sureme
#ourt of the $hiliines decides that the judge had jurisdiction to ma-e
the change !! a matter of local administration on which we should be
very slow to revise the judgment. %ray v. Tayl&r &&( U. S. 51+ F&' v.
Haars#i() 15; U. S. ;(7, 15; U. S. ;(*. )e:t, the judges, on
insection of the oinions and records which they regard as
incororated in the comlaint, and for which they were resonsible by
their assent, are of oinion that the statements in the former oinions
were chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
$age &31 U. S. 111
correct and that the decisions were right, and, of course, reject the
suggestion that they were deceived when they rendered the
judgments. %t might be added that the comlaint hardly ma-es it clear
that any of the alleged misstatements, some of which at least, were
irrelevant to the result, were the determining causes of the judgment
of which the laintiff comlains.
?ut, however it may be as to the matters that we have stated, we
regard it as fundamental that the immunity of the defendant from this
suit is the same as that of judges in the United States, which is
established beyond disute. @ .' U. S. (, ma-e the rule erhas more
imortant in the $hiliines than it is here. %t is true that, in "ct
)o.1*', A *, of the $hiliine #ommission 81*'19, it is rovided that
Bno judge, justice of the eace, or assessor shall be liable to a civil
action for the recovery of damages by reason of any judicial action or
judgment rendered by him in good faith, and within the limits of his
legal owers and jurisdiction,B
and it is argued that this imorts that any judge shall be liable for a
judgment rendered in bad faith. ?ut, without considering the <uestion
of ower, we are of oinion, for the reasons to which we have referred,
that this should not be construed to convey such an imlication, at
least as to judges of the sureme court. The section is shown to have
had in mind inferior judges and the li-e by its mention of justices of
the eace and assessors, as to whom a different rule has been held to
revail. chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
$age &31 U. S. 11&
We thin- it manifest that the <uestion on which the decision of this
cause deends needs no further argument, and that the judgment
should be affirmed.
*ud+$e,# a-r$ed.