503 Phil. 648
CARPIO-MORALES, J.:
In compliance with the Order of this Court dated April 25, 2003 ordering the undersigned Sheriff to submit his return regarding the service of the Decision in the above-entitled case, it is further certified that on April 4, 2003 said Decision was served upon the defendant Jose Marcell Panlilio at Grand Boulevard Hotel, Manila thru Andy Dizon, whose signature appeared at the return slip of said Decision. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)Acting on the Sheriff's Return filed on April 29, 2003, respondent Judge, by Order of April 30, 2003,[15] denied complainant's Motion for Execution in this wise:
The Sheriff of this Branch submitted his Return on the service of the decision to the defendants and certified that the decision was served to defendants on April 4, 2003. However, the counsel for the defendants alleged in his Notice of Appeal that he received copy of the decision on April 8, 2003. Thus, the filing of the Notice of Appeal was within the reglementary period. Besides (sic), the counting of the Fifteen (15) days period should be reckoned from the date when the defendants' counsel received copy of the decision. (Emphasis, italics and underscoring supplied)Complainant thus filed on June 4, 2003 a Motion for Reconsideration[16] of respondent Judge's Order of April 30, 2003, setting it for hearing on June 10, 2003. Complainant personally served a copy of the motion at the office of Atty. Dennis Manicad and it was received by one Andy Yuson.[17]
1) | Violation of ART. 206 of the Revised Penal Code [RPC] for rendering the unjust interlocutory ORDER dated April 30, 2003 denying the motion for execution and approving the appeal after the Decision had become final and executory; | |
2) | Violation of ART. 207, RPC, for rendering the same ORDER dated April 30, 2003 which maliciously delay the proper, effective and efficient administration of justice due me as he presiding party; | |
3) | Violation of SEC. 3 (e) of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act (R.A. 3019, as amended) by issuing his null ad void Order of April 30, 2003, unlawfully denying the execution of the final and executory judgment and improperly approving a farce appeal after the expiration of the period provided by law. Judge BELLOSILLO "caused undue injury" to me and "gave the defendants unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in not obliging them to satisfy the judgments to my prejudice and damage, showing manifest partiality in the discharge of his judicial functions; | |
4) | Violation of SEC. 1 ART. III (Bill of Rights), of the 1987 Constitution. In unlawfully denying the execution of the final and executory judgment, and unduly approving the improper appeal therefrom, through his null and void ORDER dated April 30, 2003-Judge BELLOSILLO, in effect, deprived me of my right to the fruits of the verdict without due process of law; | |
5) | For his manifest ignorance of the law, Presiding Judge BELLOSILLO committed violations of: (a) RULE 1.01 and RULE 1.02 of CANON 1 (Code of Judicial Conduct) providing that "A judge should be the embodiment of competence, integrity and independence," and "A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay;" (b) Rule 3.01 of CANON 3-providing that "A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence;" (c) RULE 3.02 of CANON 3-enjoining that "In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interest, x x x;" and (d) RULE 3.09 of CANON 3 (on Administrative Responsibilities) providing that "A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity. (Emphasis in the original; italization and underscoring supplied) |
With respect to respondent Legal Researcher-OIC Branch Clerk of Court Huerto, she filed her Comment[23] on November 6, 2003 proffering as follows:
- Nobody among the staff informed the undersigned about the problem concerning Civil Case No. 29181. He came to know about the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration only when he received a copy of the Administrative Complaint attaching said motion. The undersigned called a meeting with all the staff to know the circumstances behind the missing pleading. The court's civil in charge, Thess Banaban, and clerk, Regina Manacas, who received the plaintiff's motion, both claimed that a copy of the motion was given to Mrs. Huerto, who is supposed to forward the same to the office of the Presiding Judge for appropriate action. The undersigned confronted the OIC, Mrs. Huerto, about the missing motion but she could not explain the whereabouts of the said motion. She gave a flimsy excuse that it was lost in her table. It was also stressed during the meeting that any office problem must be immediately brought to the attention of the Presiding Judge.
- Upon receipt of the Administrative Complaint, the undersigned went over the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration and after a cursory perusal thereon, admits that there was an honest mistake or oversight on the part of the undersigned. Instead of reckoning the 15 days reglementary period from the date of receipt of the defendant's counsel, it should be the date of receipt by the defendant Panlilio;
- Had the said missing motion for reconsideration brought to the attention of the undersigned, the mistake could have been rectified or corrected. Unfortunately, the records were forwarded to the Clerk of Court of RTC without the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration;
x x x
- Plaintiff also charged the undersigned for rendering the unjust interlocutory order dated April 30, 2003 denying her motion for execution and approving defendants' appeal. Contrary to the contention of the plaintiff, there was no deliberate and malicious intent on the part of the undersigned to delay (sic) the early disposition of her case. As borne out by the records, all the pending motions filed before in Civil Case 29181 were acted upon with dispatched. It is unfair that the court issued the last order which was not favorable to the plaintiff, she accused the undersigned of delaying (sic) her case;
- Plaintiff further charged the undersigned for violation of Section 3(E) of the anti-graft and corrupt practices act (R.A. 3019, as amended) allegedly for issuing null and void order of April 30, 2003 and improperly approving a farce appeal after the expiration of the period provided by law which caused undue injury to her and gave the defendants unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in obliging them to satisfy the judgments, showing manifest partiality in the discharge of his judicial functions and violation of Section 1 Article 3 of the 1987 Constitution.
x x x The assailed order was issued on the belief of the undersigned that it was the proper order to be issued then. It is likewise not amiss to point out that due process was afforded to both parties especially the complainant (Agregado);- Lastly, plaintiff also charged the undersigned for violation of a) Rule 1.01 and Rule 1.02 of Canon 1; b) Rule 3.01 of Canon 3; c) Rule 3.02 of Canon 3; d) Rule 3.09 of Canon 3. The undersigned in handling cases before his sala tries and decides them fairly and judiciously based on facts and applicable laws unswayed by partisan interest.
In resolving plaintiff's motion for execution and defendant's notice of appeal, the undersigned was scrupulously careful to avoid such action as seasonably tend to awaken the suspicion that my actuation was tainted by malice and bad faith. The Supreme Court in the case of Dizon v. Borja (Adm. Case No. 163-J, January 28, 1971), Justice Makalintal categorically stated that: "to hold a judge administratively accountable for every erroneous ruling or decision he renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and would make his position unbearable;- Viewed from the foregoing facts, the complaint at bar, if ever understood, is UNFOUNDED and a plain harassment which should be outrightly dismissed. Moreover, not a scintilla of evidence was adduced by complainant Agregado that herein respondent should be suspended, disbarred, or otherwise disciplinarily sanctioned as a member of the bar. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
- That on June 4, 2003, Plaintiff filed her Motion for Reconsideration;
x x x
- That on June 10, 2003, I told the plaintiff that the hearing on the Motion was not held due to Semestral Inventory of Cases and the same is deemed submitted for resolution;
- That I have not seen the record on June 10, 2003 since we have no hearing on that date and I'm personally conducting the semestral inventory of cases and other minor problems in the Office;
- That a week after, the Civil Case In-Charge informed me that said Motion for Reconsideration was already placed on my table and I referred it personally to Judge Edgardo B. Bellosillo for his comment;
- That on June 23, 2003, I transmitted the record to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, but, however, due to inadvertence, I failed to notice that the Motion for Reconsideration was not part of the record transmitted. Hence, it can be considered an excusable neglect. The Copy of Transmittal Order was given to the mailing-in-charge on June 23, 2003.
x x x
- That when I noticed that said Motion was not transmitted to the Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, I immediately informed the Civil Case In-Charge Ms. Regina Malakas (sic) that we have to forward [the] Motion for Reconsideration to the Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court, Quezon City;
- That on June 23, 2003, said Motion for Reconsideration together with other voluminous files were placed in my table including records submitted for decisions, resolutions and other motions;
x x x
- That when I returned from the seminar on Monday, June 30, 2003, I noticed that some records submitted for resolutions, decisions and other motions were disarranged and that some of the records including the Motion for Reconsideration were no longer in its proper place;
- That from then on, I have not seen the Motion for Reconsideration;
x x x
- That said failure to transmit the Motion for Reconsideration was due to certain unavoidable circumstances, but certainly and definitely, not intended to remove, destruct or suppress the said Motion for Reconsideration;
x x x (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)
It is hereby respectfully recommended that the complaint be dismissed as against respondents Judge Edgardo Bellosillo and Theresa Banaban for lack of merit. It is further recommended that the instant case be docketed as a regular administrative matter as against respondent OIC Leonila Huerto finding her guilty of simple neglect of duty and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day. A formal investigation is not necessary since the discussion in this case is based on undisputed and admitted facts as disclosed in the complaint and in the comments of the respondents. (Emphasis and underscoring supplied)In support of its recommendation to dismiss the complaint against respondent Judge, the Court Administrator submits:
Respondent Judge Bellosillo admitted that his order dated April 30, 2003 denying plaintiff's motion for execution was erroneous. He should have reckoned the 15-day reglementary period from date of receipt by the defendants of a copy of the decision on April 4, 2003. He could have rectified his error but he had no opportunity to do so since plaintiff's motion for reconsideration was never referred to him. He learned of the said motion for reconsideration when he received the administrative complaint that was indorsed to him by the Court Administrator. With the consideration that he decided Civil Case No. 29181 in favor of the plaintiff and he had disposed of the incidents with dispatch prior to the filing of the motion for reconsideration, and that there being no showing in the record that his actuation in Civil Case No. 29181 was tainted with bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption, it is not fair and just that he should be held liable for any of the offenses as charged by complainant against him in the instant administrative matter. (Underscoring supplied)In recommending that respondent Huerto be faulted for simple neglect of duty, the OCA submits:
The vital issue is whether or not the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 29181 was brought to the attention of the respondent judge before the filing of the present administrative matter. On this issue, the respondent legal researcher OIC Leonila Huerto did not tell the truth in claiming that she did personally refer the motion to the respondent judge for his comment. She did not mention any specific date. The motion for reconsideration was filed on June 4, 2003 and set for hearing June 10, 2003. It is clear from her comment that on the same date June 4, 2003, she did receive the motion for reconsideration which was handed to her by receiving clerk Regina Malacas. Plaintiff and her counsel appeared on June 10, 2003 but they were told by respondent Huerto that the presiding judge was then attending a convention and that their motion for reconsideration was deemed submitted for resolution. The motion for reconsideration should have been reset for hearing as there was no court order declaring that motion be deemed submitted for resolution. Evidently, the motion for reconsideration was not brought to the attention of the respondent Judge Bellosillo during the period from June 4, 2003 to June 10, 2003.Respondent Judge categorizes as an "honest mistake or oversight" his reliance on Atty. Manicad's allegation that he received copy of the decision on April 8, 2003-basis of his (respondent Judge's) denial of complainant's motion for execution filed on April 22, 2003. He hastens to add that "[h]ad the missing motion for reconsideration [of his order denying [complainant's] Motion for Execution] [been] brought to his [his] attention, the mistake could have been rectified or corrected."
On June 23, 2003, respondent OIC Huerto forwarded the record of Civil Case No. 29181 to the RTC. Same respondent categorically admitted in her comment that on the dame date June 23, 2003, the subject motion for reconsideration together with other voluminous files were on her table. She did not mention a court order resolving the said motion for reconsideration on her table for no such order existed. The non-existence of an order resolving the motion for reconsideration only shows that respondent Mrs. Huerto had not really referred said motion to respondent Judge for his appropriate action. That is why she did not include the motion for reconsideration as part of the record of the case that was forwarded to the RTC. On June 30, 2003, after her attendance in the seminar, the receiving clerk Ms. Malakas inquired from her the status of the motion for reconsideration. Respondent Huerto said that is was in her possession. She told Mrs. Malakas not to worry about it for there was an order from the court giving due course to the appeal, the same order which was the subject of the motion for reconsideration.x x x
Section 6, Rule 40 of the Revised Rules of Court prescribes the duty of the clerk of court in case of appeal from the Municipal Trial Court to the proper Regional Trial Court. The rule provides that within fifteen (15) days from the perfection of the appeal, the clerk of court shall transmit the original record together with the transcripts and exhibits which he shall certify as complete, to the proper Regional Trial Court. The appeal in Civil Case No. 29181 was not yet perfected in view of the pending motion for reconsideration. As already discussed in the foregoing, the record of the case that was transmitted on June 23, 2003 by respondent OIC Huerto to the RTC was not complete. Due to her own fault she did not include as part of the record the plaintiff's motion for reconsideration. Indeed, on the same date, June 23, 2003, the motion for reconsideration was on her table but without an order resolving the motion for she never referred the motion to the respondent judge. x x x (Underscoring supplied)
As against respondent Theresa Banaban, the complaint alleged that she was the one "who confirmed the setting of the hearing at 2:00 p.m. on June 20, 2003 as approved by OIC-Branch Clerk of Court Leonila Huerto." Even if true, there is nothing wrong about that confirmation. In her Comment, respondent Banaban stated that the motion for reconsideration did not pass through her and that she had no participation in any office work related to the appeal. Said respondent Banaban should be exonerated.While this Court takes note of the Court Administrator's appreciation in respondent Judge's favor his disposition with dispatch of complainant's case and the absence of any showing of "bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption" in his actuations, he should be admonished for failing, as reflected above, to observe the care and diligence required of him in the performance of his duties.