368 Phil. 19
MENDOZA, J.:
On January 30, 1998, Mr. Ayo, as representative of co-plaintiffs' Vilma Aquino and her minor children, filed a "Motion To Dismiss And Disqualify Atty. Jose V. Natividad as Legal Counsel for the Co-plaintiffs (Vilma S. Aquino and Her Minor Children) etc." (Xerox copy is hereto attached as Annex "B"). Mr. Ayo set the hearing of the motion on February 6, 1998 at 8:30 A.M.Respondent judge denied that the implementation of the writ of execution in Civil Case No. 91-354 was delayed. She pointed out that, on June 23, 1998, she received a Sheriff's Report, dated April 22, 1998, from Corazon L. Bautista, Sheriff IV of the RTC, Branch 5, Dinalupihan, Bataan, to the effect that the writ of execution issued by respondent Clerk of Court Jaime M. Luy was duly implemented and that defendant Noel J. Cruz promised to settle the case amicably with the conformity of herein complainant, the authorized representative of plaintiff Vilma Aquino.
During the hearing of the motion on February 6, 1998, the Court noticed that while Atty. Romualdo Din, Jr., counsel for the defendants, was furnished with a copy of the said motion, Atty. Natividad, against whom the motion to dismiss and disqualify was directed, was not. Hence, the undersigned pointed out to Mr. Ayo, who appeared as representative of co-plaintiffs Vilma Aquino and her minor children, that since he claims in his motion to dismiss that: Atty. Natividad could no longer protect honestly and effectively the individual interest of the co-plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 91-354; Atty. Natividad did not effectively and completely carried out his duties as legal counsel for the co-plaintiffs; Atty. Natividad compromised the individual interest of the indigent litigants, the widow and the orphans, to the self-interest of Mr. Enrico Tensuan (a wealthy and influential businessman); and Atty. Natividad should not compromise his client's litigation without special authority to do so, then in the interest of justice and fair play, Atty. Natividad should be given a chance to comment. Mr. Ayo insisted that there is no need to furnish Atty. Natividad with a copy of his Motion to Dismiss; that precisely he did not furnish Atty. Natividad with a copy of the motion was because he did not want Atty. Natividad to prepare; and that he has all the right to dismiss Atty. Natividad as he does not trust him anymore. Mr. Ayo started delivering a speech attacking Atty. Natividad. The undersigned admonished him to stop as Atty. Natividad was not present in Court to answer his attack. But Mr. Ayo refused to stop and started lecturing on the freedom of speech. At this point, the undersigned reminded Mr. Ayo that since he is not a lawyer, he does not know that his motion is litigious and that notice is important and part of due process. Obviously, Mr. Ayo resented being admonished for he retorted that even if he is not a lawyer, he has read the Rules of Court many times and there is nothing there to show that a lawyer must be notified of his dismissal by his client.
Mr. Ayo then proceeded to argue that since the co-plaintiffs whom he is representing, are pauper litigants, the Court must be on their side.
On the same date, February 6, 1998, the Court through the undersigned, dictated an order in Open Court directing Mr. Ayo, to furnish, within three days, Atty. Natividad with a copy of said motion and for Atty. Natividad to file his comment thereto within five (5) days from receipt of said copy. The Court also reset the hearing of the motion to March 13, 1998. (Xerox copy of the Order dated February 6, 1998 is hereto attached as Annex "C"). Throughout the proceedings on February 6, 1998, the undersigned never spoke "harshly" to Mr. Ayo or to anyone, for that matter. The undersigned was very patient with Mr. Ayo knowing pretty well that he is not a lawyer and the fact that the co-plaintiffs (he represents in Court) are poor litigants.
EVALUATION:Except as to respondent Jaime M. Luy, the Court finds the foregoing recommendation to be well taken.
I. Atty. JAYME M. LUY
The excuse of respondent Luy that it was only after five (5) months that complainant made a follow-up regarding the writ is not tenable because it is incumbent upon him to act with considerable dispatch so as not to unduly delay the administration of justice. His defense that the required fees should be paid first is not available to him because payment of the same should be made in Bataan and not in Makati.
Moreover, as asserted by the complainant, respondent should have sent a copy of the writ at least through registered mail to the proper court personnel at Dinalupihan, Bataan. The mistake of respondent in sending the writ to Balanga, Bataan instead of sending it to Dinalupihan shows that he is not too diligent and careful which unduly delayed the enforcement of the writ causing prejudice to the rights of the complainant.
In view of the foregoing, respondent should be admonished and warned that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with severely.
II. Sheriff JADI T. HATAB
Respondent Hatab correctly argued that he cannot be blamed for the delay being complained since he had nothing to do with the subject writ considering that he was not the addressee thereof.
The case as against him should be dismissed.
III. Atty. ERLINDA M. PEREZ
The defense raised by respondent Perez is meritorious. She cannot be held liable for Abuse of Discretion and Non-feasance merely because she refused to receive and implement the subject writ. The reasons she gave in support of her defense are legal and valid. In so far as she is concerned, this case should be dismissed.
IV. JOEY A. ASTORGA
The complainant's allegation that the writ and other documents remained in respondent Ayo's table from January 12, 1998 up to January 27, 1998 was not substantiated. While the explanation of respondent that the writ was already endorsed to the deputy sheriff is supported by the legal presumption that he performed his duty with regularity.
Furthermore, fifteen (15) days of delay is not extra- ordinarily long as to show deliberate delay as suggested by the complainant. The case as against him should also be dismissed.
V. Judge LUCIA VIOLAGO-ISNANI
Respondent Judge is not liable for grave abuse of discretion and partiality. Her actions clearly showed that she was scrupulous in seeing to it that the requirements of fair play and due process were satisfied.
The allegation of complainant that respondent manifested partiality by humiliating him in open court stands on a shaky ground. There was no evidence submitted to prove the same. Assuming arguendo that complainant was ordered to refrain from talking during the hearing on February 6, 1998, respondent Judge cannot be faulted for so doing because the judge conducting a trial is not a mere moderator but is the governor of the trial for the purpose of assuring its proper conduct and the fair and impartial administration of justice between the parties to the litigation. Freedom of expression cannot be invoked by complainant because it is available only in so far as it is exercised for the discussion of matters affecting public interest; purely private matters do not come within the guaranty.
Anent the contention of complainant that respondent judge's order dated February 6, 1998 was unjust, no merit may be given to such considering that hearings of cases or incidents thereof are ordinarily re-scheduled to a further date in view of heavy case-load of court's calendar especially those situated in Metro Manila.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court are our recommendations that:
- This case be RE-DOCKETED as an administrative matter as regards respondent Atty. Jayme M. Luy;
- Respondent Atty. Jayme M. Luy be ADMONISHED for his non-feasance and be WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with severely; and
- The case against the other respondents be DISMISSED for lack of merit.