PHILIPPINE SUPREME
COURT
DECISIONS
.
THIRD DIVISION
MELECIA
B. BELLENA, ANACITA LEONCITO, GINA LUCBAN,
MA.
FE C. BALSA, FILOMENA T. BELLENA, ELENA B. TIMCANG,
FELIPE
GADE, JR., AMY CLAVE, CANDELARIA BARRIENTOS,
FORTUNATO
ESTORES, CRESELDA I. AZUCENA, ROSARIO B, EBON,
PERLITA
D. LLAGUNO, ZENAIDA M. ALFAR, ROWENA A. BERMUDO,
ALMARIE
L. LLAGUNO, GEMMA F. SENDA, GEMMA GADE, ALVIN SAMSON,
VICENTE
GALGO, OSCARLITO F. ARAMBOLA, CESAR GO, MARY JANE C. MAHILUM,
EMILY
SENILLO, ELVIRA VISCAYNO, NARCISO MARIACA, LINA D. CHUA,
ROLANDO
CAPESENIO, ELVIRA VELASCO, WENEFREDA DONOR,
DANILO
M. MANALO and REY JAY BEJEDOR,
Complainants,
|
-versus-
A.M.
No. RTJ-04-1846
January
31, 2005
JUDGE
NORMA C. PERELLO,
Respondent. x----------------------------------------------------------------------x
|
R
E S O L U T I O N
GARCIA,
J.:
In a
verified letter-complaint dated 29 September 2002
[1]
and filed with
the Office of the Court Administrator, complainants administratively
charged Judge Norma C. Perello, Presiding Judge, Branch 276, Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Muntinlupa City with gross ignorance of the law,
grave misconduct and oppression in connection with her actuations in
Civil Case No. 01-268.
Records
show that complainants are the plaintiffs in the aforementioned Civil
Case No. 01-268, an action for “Illegal Eviction/Demolition, Loss of
Property and Damages, Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order,
Relocation/Restitution/Benefits, With Prayer for Lis Pendens and Other
Relief”, filed by them against CST Enterprises, Inc. (CST) and several
others. In said case, defendant CST filed a motion to dismiss,
which the respondent judge granted in her Order of 22 November 2001.
[2]
Against the
order of dismissal, complainants filed a motion for reconsideration but
the same was denied by the respondent judge in her subsequent order of
28 January 2002.
[3]
Thereafter,
complainants filed a Notice of Appeal dated February 2, 2002,
[4]
therein making
known to the respondent that they are taking an appeal to the Court of
Appeals from her orders of 22 November 2001 and 28 January 2002.
In an order dated 6 March 2002,
[5]
the respondent
judge gave due course thereto and directed her clerk of court to act
accordingly. In turned out, however, that the records of the case
were transmitted to the Court of Appeals only on December 12, 2002,
[6]
or almost nine
(9) months after complainants’ Notice of Appeal was given due course by
the respondent judge.
Hence,
complainants’ verified letter-complaint, therein alleging that the
respondent judge “had deliberately and maliciously and conveniently
delayed, mocked, mummified, frustrated, checkmated and defeated the
quest [of the complainants] to have their appeal expeditiously
disposed”. They thus prayed that “a proper disciplinary sanction
be imposed [on the respondent judge] for having grossly violated Rule
3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct”.
Acting
on the letter-complaint, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco,
Jr., via a 1st indorsement dated 23 October 2002,
[7]
referred the
same to the respondent judge, directing the latter to submit her
comment thereon and “to show [cause] why you should not also be
suspended, disbarred or otherwise disciplinary sanctioned as a member
of the Bar for Violation of Rule 1.03, Cannon 1 of the Code of
Professional Responsibility pursuant to the Resolution of the Court En
Banc in A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC dated September 17, 2002, within ten (10)
days from receipt hereof xxx”.
Via a
return indorsement dated November 25, 2002,
[8]
the respondent
judge submitted her comment, thereunder narrating the antecedents of
Civil Case No. 01-268. According to her, complainants were the
losing party in an unlawful detainer suit filed by them against CST
before the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Muntinlupa City;
that in said case, the MTCC upheld the better possessory right of CST
and accordingly ordered complainants as plaintiffs in the case to
vacate the premises therein involved; that instead of taking an appeal
to the RTC, complainants went to the Court of Appeals on a petition for
certiorari, which petition was denied by the appellate court; that from
the MTCC decision, complainants filed a petition for certiorari with
RTC Branch 256, Muntinlupa City which said court dismissed; that
therefrom, complainants went to the Court of Appeals, again via
certiorari, which the appellate court similarly denied; that
thereafter, the MTCC decision was executed and all the complainants
were evicted from the premises and their shanties demolished; and that,
it was then that complainants filed their complaint in Civil Case No.
01-268 which was raffled to her court, asking damages as they were
allegedly illegally evicted and their houses demolished on account of
the execution of the MTCC decision in the unlawful detainer case.
In the same comment, respondent judge averred that pending her
consideration of Civil Case No. 01-268, complainants tried to seek the
annotation of a notice of lis pendens on CST’s title but the Register
of Deeds of Muntinlupa refused, prompting complainants to take an
appeal en consulta with the Land Registration Authority (LRA); that
when the Register of Deeds failed to file a comment to the appeal en
consulta as required by LRA, complainants filed a motion in Civil Case
No. 01-268, asking her (respondent Judge) to compel the Register of
Deeds to comply with the LRA directive; and that ultimately, the LRA
dismissed complainants’ appeal en consulta.
Respondent
alleged that it was against the foregoing backdrop of events when
complainants filed their Notice of Appeal in Civil Case No. 01-268,
which notice was given due course by her in her Order dated 6 March
2002.
By way
of defense, respondent emphasized in the same comment that she is not
the custodian of records, maintaining that since the duty to forward to
the CA the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 devolves upon her branch
clerk of court, Atty. Luis Bucayon II, she could not be held
responsible for the delayed transmittal thereof to the appellate court.
In its
report to the Court dated 20 November 2003,
[9]
the Office of
the Court Administrator found the respondent judge liable for the delay
in the transmittal to the CA of the records of Civil Case No. 01-268,
and accordingly recommended, as follows:
“RECOMMENDATION:
Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court the
following recommendations:
1.
The respondent be found GUILTY of undue delay in transmitting the
records of Civil Case No. 01-268 entitled: 'Bellena, et. al., vs. CST
Enterprises, Inc., et al.’ to the Court of Appeals;
2.
The respondent be imposed with a penalty of FINE of P 20,000.00; and
3.
This matter be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative case against the
respondent judge.”
In a
resolution dated 15 March 2004,
[10]
the Court, thru
its 3rd Division, re-docketed the case as a regular administrative
matter and referred it to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals
for raffle among its members for investigation, report and
recommendation within ninety (90) days from notice.
The
case was raffled to CA Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente who
forthwith set the same for preliminary conference and initial
hearing. Hearings were accordingly held, in the course of which
complainants and respondent presented their witnesses in support of
their respective allegations.
During
the hearings, complainants Melecia Bellena and Zenaida Alfar testified
that after their notice of appeal was granted by the respondent judge
in her Order of 6 March, 2002, and despite their numerous personal
inquiries to the court, it was only in December 2002 that the branch
clerk of court transmitted the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 to the
Court of Appeals.
For
her part, the respondent judge declared that she had never met any of
the complainants personally; that she had no reason to delay the
transmittal of the records of the subject case to the appellate court;
that during the regular monthly meetings with her staff, she would
remind her branch clerk of court, Atty. Luis Bucayon II, to
elevate the records of the case to the Court of Appeals; and, that
Bucayon II explained that the records could not be transmitted yet for
being incomplete as he was still awaiting for the resolution of the LRA
on complainants’ en consulta appeal.
Via a
covering letter, bearing date 16 July 2004, the Investigating Justice
submitted to the Court her Report dated July 15, 2004, (See
confidential envelope), with the following recommendations, to wit:
“IN VIEW THEREOF,
the following recommendations are hereby respectfully submitted for the
consideration of the Honorable Supreme Court:
1.
That the charges of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Grave Misconduct and
Oppression against Judge Norma C. Perello be DISMISSED for lack of
merit;
2.
That respondent Judge Norma C. Perello be found GUILTY of undue delay
in transmitting the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 entitled 'Bellena,
et al. vs. CST Enterprises, Inc.’ to the Court of Appeals and be
imposed the penalty of FINE in the amount of P20,000.00; and
3.
That respondent Judge Norma C. Perello be further ADMONISHED to
faithfully observe the explicit mandate of Canon 3, Rule 3.09 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, not only by adopting measures in her court
for the prompt transmittal of records, but also by establishing an
effective system of monitoring and safekeeping of court records to
comply with its mandate of providing a just and speedy administration
of justice.”
As we
see it, the only issue for determination in this administrative case is
whether or not the delay in the transmittal of the records of Civil
Case No. 01-268 to the Court of Appeals constitutes gross ignorance of
the law, grave misconduct or oppression on the part of respondent
judge, as charged by the complainants in their letter-complaint.
When
the law is sufficiently basic or elementary, not to be aware of it
constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
[11]
And to be held
liable therefor, the respondent must be shown to have committed an
error that was gross or patent, deliberate and malicious.
[12]
The
pertinent rule governing the transmittal of records in appealed cases
is Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which provides:
SEC. 10.
Duty of clerk of court of the lower court upon perfection of
appeal. - Within thirty (30) days after perfection of all
the appeals in accordance with the preceding section, it shall be the
duty of the clerk of court of the lower court:
(a)
To verify the correctness of the original record or the record on
appeal, as the case may be, and to make a certification of
its correctness;
(b)
To verify the completeness of the records that will be transmitted to
the appellate court;
(c)
If found to be incomplete, to take such measures as may be required to
complete the records, availing of the authority that he or the court
may exercise for this purpose; and
(d)
To transmit the records to the appellate court.
If the
efforts to complete the records fail, he shall indicate in his letter
of transmittal the exhibits or transcripts not included in the records
being transmitted to the appellate court, the reasons for their
non-transmittal, and the steps taken or that could be taken to have
them available.
The
clerk of court shall furnish the parties with copies of his letter of
transmittal of the records to the appellate court.
As
correctly noted by the Investigating Justice, the aforequoted
enumerated duties are primarily the concern of the clerk of court, and
respondent judge can only go as far as directing the latter to act in
accordance therewith after an appeal has been perfected.
Other
than complainants’ bare allegation, the evidence on record is bereft of
proof that the respondent judge acted deliberately, maliciously and in
bad faith in the delayed transmittal of the records of Civil Case No.
01-268 to the appellate court. Quite the contrary, the records show
that the respondent judge, in her Order dated 6 March 2002, promptly
gave due course to complainants’ Notice of Appeal filed on February 27,
2002. In yet another Order dated 17 September 2002,
[13]
the same
respondent likewise acted with prompt on complainants’ urgent ex-parte
motion for transmittal of records
Verily,
and as correctly found by the Investigating Justice, the charge of
gross ignorance of the law has no factual and legal basis.
We
agree with her.
Nor
are we to differ with the Investigating Justice in her conclusion that
the respondent judge could not be held guilty for grave misconduct or
oppression.
Misconduct
is defined as any unlawful conduct on the part of the person concerned
in the administration of justice prejudicial to the rights of parties
or to the proper determination of the cause. It generally means
wrongful, improper or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated,
obstinate or intentional purpose.
[14]
Here,
there is no showing that respondent judge had deliberately committed an
act resulting in the delay of the transmittal of subject records to the
Court of Appeals. On the contrary, he acted immediately on the
complainants’ Notice of Appeal. And when apprised that the records
remained unforwarded to the appellate court, she acted, also with
dispatch, on complainants’ ex-parte motion for transmittal. As it were,
the respondent judge never exhibited any hostility to the complainants
during the hearing of Civil Case No, 01-268 and even when they were
making inquiries on the status of their case.
The
same may be said as regards charge of oppression. That the
respondent judge ruled against complainants in Civil Case No. 01-276,
would not per se amount to partiality against them, much less warrant
the conclusion that she intended to oppress them. The Court has to be
shown with specific acts or conduct on the part of the respondent judge
which are clearly indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice before she
could be branded the stigma of being biased, partial and
oppressive. It was not shown that the delay in the transmittal of
records was due to her personal interest in the main case. For sure,
there was even no allegation that the delay was due to her animosity
towards the complainants. Not every error or mistake a judge commits in
the performance of his/her duties renders him/her liable, unless he/she
is shown to have acted in bad faith or with deliberate intent to do an
injustice.
The
foregoing notwithstanding, we are, however, in accord with the
Investigating Justice in her recommendation to hold the respondent
judge accountable for the delay of almost nine (9) months in the
transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 to the Court of
Appeals. By any standard, such a delay is quite extraordinary.
Appalling is how the Investigating Justice characterized the delay, and
we agree with her. We are unsatisfied with respondent’s excuse of
passing the blame to the incompetence of her branch clerk of court.
Under
Rule 3.09, Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge should
organize and supervise her court personnel to ensure the prompt and
efficient dispatch of the business of her court, and require at all
times the observance of high standards of public service and
fidelity. Sad to say, the respondent judge did not embody the
ideals of a good judge when she failed to take appropriate measures
that would ensure the prompt transmittal of the subject records. In
this connection, we quote with approval the following observations of
the Investigating Justice vis-à-vis the excuse proffered by the
respondent judge:
“Respondent
judge cannot seek refuge in the incompetence of her subordinate since
proper and efficient court management is her own responsibility.
She is the master of her own domain and should take responsibility for
the mistakes of those under her. Such display of laxity and
inefficiency on the part of her branch clerk of court, an essential
officer performing delicate administrative functions in the court,
militates against the management skills of respondent judge. It
indicates that she has not been meticulous and zealous as she should
have been in organizing and supervising the work of her subordinates as
required by Canon 3, Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
This impression is reinforced by respondent’s failure to discover,
despite the lapse of almost nine (9) months, that the records of Civil
Case No. 01-268 were still with her court. Also, when
complainants filed their Urgent Manifestation and Ex-Parte Motion to
Transmit the Original Record or Approved Record on Appeal sometime in
September 2002, respondent judge should have already been forewarned
that the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 were yet to be transmitted
despite her order of March 6, 2002 giving due course to the appeal and
directing said transmittal. Respondent’s claim that the records
were still incomplete due to the pending ‘Appeal En Consulta’ with the
Land Registration Authority was nowhere stated in her orders. And
assuming this to be true, the Rules allow a partial transmittal of
records, which in fact was done when the records were finally
transmitted to the Court of appeals, though quite late already, on
December 3, 2002.
Members
of the judiciary have always been reminded that undue delays erode the
people’s faith and confidence in our justice system and bring it into
disrepute.
At any
rate, even assuming that the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 were
still incomplete, deferring its transmittal is not the proper and legal
action. The Rules of Court require the transmittal of the
complete records to the appellate court within thirty (30) days after
perfection of the appeal. If the efforts to complete the records
fail, the clerk of court shall indicate in his letter of transmittal
the exhibits or transcripts not included in the records being
transmitted to the appellate court, the reasons for their
non-transmittal, and the steps taken or that could be taken to have
them available.
Also,
while respondent Judge tends to attribute to her clerk of court the
cause of the delayed transmittal, she has not, however, shown that she
had admonished said erring personnel or had taken corrective measures
in her court to stress the importance of monitoring and safekeeping of
court records. Her seeming laxity and leniency over the
carelessness of her subordinates were the same reasons which led to a
previous incident in 1997 of a ‘missing’ court record, resulting in the
delay in the disposition of that case, for which she was reprimanded
along with her staff.
Although
the clerk of court is primarily responsible for the implementation of
respondent judge’s orders, the fact remains that respondent judge is
tasked with administrative supervision over her personnel. It is
the responsibility of the judge to always see to it that his/her orders
are properly and promptly enforced and that case records are properly
stored and kept. Respondent judge here is cognizant of this duty
of a judge. In fact, in connection with her previous
administrative case where she was reprimanded for incompetence in the
supervision of her employees, she admitted that she may have indeed
been negligent in not closely supervising her staff but claimed that it
does not mean she was incompetent”.
[15]
As
correctly found by Investigating Justice, undue delay in the
transmittal of the records of a case is a less serious offense defined
and penalized under Sections 9 and 11, Rule 140, of the Rules of Court,
which respectively read, insofar as pertinent, as follows:
“SEC. 9.
Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:
“1.
Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the
records of a case”.
“Sec.
11. Sanctions. –
xxx
“B.
If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the
following sanctions shall be imposed:
1.
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less
than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2.
A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00”.
The
reason for the rule requiring prompt transmittal of records in appealed
cases is to ensure the speedy disposition of the case. Doubtless,
respondent’s failure to monitor the performance of her clerk of court
had resulted in a delay in the administration of justice. We hold that
a fine of P20,000.00 is an appropriate penalty for respondent judge.
WHEREFORE, Judge Norma Perello,
Presiding Judge, Branch 276, Regional Trial Court, Muntinlupa City is
hereby found GUILTY of undue
delay in transmitting to the Court of Appeals the records of Civil Case
No. 01-268 entitled “Bellena, et al. vs. CST Enterprises, Inc.” and is
accordingly meted the penalty of FINE
in the amount of P20,000.00 and further ADMONISHED to faithfully observe the
explicit mandate of Canon 3, Rule 3.09, of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, not only by adopting measures in her court for the prompt
transmittal of records in appealed cases, but also by establishing an
effective system of monitoring and safekeeping of court records to
ensure a just and speedy administration of justice.
For
lack of factual and legal bases, the charges of gross ignorance of the
law, grave misconduct and oppression against her are DISMISSED.
SO
ORDERED.
Panganiban,
J., (Chairman),
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-8.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 44-45.
[3]
Rollo, p. 59-60.
[4]
Rollo, p. 61.
[5]
Rollo, p. 191.
[6]
Rollo, p. 215.
[7]
Rollo, p. 65.
[8]
Rollo, pp. 66-71.
[9]
Rollo, pp. 99-104.
[10]
Rollo, p. 113.
[11]
Uy vs. Dizon-Capulong, 221 SCRA 87, 95 [1993].
[12]
Baldado vs. Judge Bugtas, 414 SCRA 345 [2003].
[13]
Rollo, p. 190.
[14]
Tan Tiac Chiong vs. Justice Cosico, 385 SCRA 509 [2002].
[15]
Report, pp. 11-13.
|
chan robles virtual law library
Back
to Top - Back
to Main Index - Back
to Table of Contents -2005 SC Decisions
- Back
to Home
|