FIRST DIVISION
RODRIGO
Q. TUGOT,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-00-1332
February 16, 2004
-versus-
JUDGE
MAMERTO Y.
COLIFLORES,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:
Once again, we remind trial
judges to observe the Canons
of Judicial Ethics. Thus, a violation of the Rule
on Summary Procedure subjects the offender to administrative
sanction. The Case and the
Facts
This administrative
case finds its roots in Rodrigo Q. Tugot’s Letter-Complaint[1]
dated October 14, 1998, charging Judge Mamerto Y. Coliflores of the
Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (Branch 1) of Cebu City with gross ignorance of
the
law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, infidelity in the custody
of public records/documents, and violation of Section 3 (e) of Republic
Act No. 3019.chanrobles virtual law library
The facts of the case
are summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in this
wise:
“On 18 November 1998,
the Office of the Ombudsman indorsed to this Office the verified
Letter-Complaint
dated 14 October 1998 of Rodrigo Q. Tugot charging Judge Mamerto
Coliflores
with Gross Ignorance of the Law, Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment,
Infidelity
in the Custody of Public Records/Documents and Violation of Section 3
(e),
R.A. 3019, and Branch Clerk of Court Jose Legaspi with Neglect of Duty
and Infidelity in the Custody of Public Records/Documents, relative to
Civil Case No. R-35137 entitled ‘Rodrigo Tugot, et al. vs. Fely Lausa,
et al.’ for Ejectment.cralaw:red
“Complainant is one
of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. R-35137 which was dismissed by the
respondent judge in August 1998. The decision was allegedly without any
factual and legal basis, and prepared not by the respondent judge but
by
the respondent Clerk of Court. The plaintiffs appealed but the notice
of
appeal was not attached to the records of the case transmitted to the
appellate
court. They were informed that the notice of appeal together with the
other
documents were lost so they were advised to file another notice of
appeal
and to pay another filing fee. Plaintiffs filed a motion to transmit
the
entire records of the case to the Regional Trial Court but the same was
not acted upon because the records were not complete. Thereafter, they
received a request from the respondent Clerk of Court for a copy of the
notice of appeal since the court’s copy was misplaced.chanrobles virtual law library
“In his Comment dated
06 April 1999, respondent judge denied the complainant’s charges of
gross
ignorance of the law and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.
Respondent
judge averred that the subject judgment was based on applicable laws
and
evidence presented during trial. He himself prepared the decision and
not
the respondent Clerk of Court since the latter was then reviewing in
Manila
for the 1998 Bar examination. Respondent judge further averred that the
notice of appeal was only misplaced and not lost.cralaw:red
“Respondent Clerk of
Court vehemently denied the allegations that he was the one who
prepared
the decision in Civil Case No. R-35137 since he was on leave of absence
from August to September 1998 taking the review classes in San Beda
College
for the 1998 Bar examination. Considering that he was on leave of
absence,
it was not he but Mr. Jude Henritz Yeong, the Court Legal Researcher,
who
prepared and forwarded the original records of the case to the Regional
Trial Court of Cebu City.cralaw:red
“The Reply of the complainant
dated 06 May 1999 rebutted the allegations in the comment of the
respondent
judge. Complainant added that the respondent judge waited for about
nine
hundred (900) days for the defendants to submit their pre[-]trial
brief,
and the preliminary conference was conducted in violation of the
requirements
of the Rules on Summary Procedure. In deciding the case in favor of the
defendants, the respondent judge manifested ignorance of the law and
bias
resulting in their prejudice. Complainant contended that one of the
defendants
did not file an answer while the other answers were unsworn to and
unverified
and therefore should have been considered as mere scraps of paper. The
position papers of the defendants were submitted beyond the period
provided
for by the rules but the respondent judge accepted the same.chanrobles virtual law library
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x
“In [its September 18,
2000 Agenda Report, the OCA, after investigation of the case],
submitted
the following recommendations:
(a) the
case
be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter;
(b) the charges of
gross
ignorance of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and
violation
of R.A. 3019 against the respondent judge be dismissed for lack of
basis;
(c) the charges of
neglect
of duty and infidelity in the custody of public document against the
respondent
clerk of court be dismissed for lack of merit;
(d) respondent
judge
[b]e ordered to pay a fine of P2,000.00 for his gross inefficiency
relative
to the delay in the conduct of the preliminary conference with a
warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely;chanrobles virtual law library
(e) respondent
judge
be admonished for simple neglect of duty relative to the loss of the
complainant’s
notice of appeal with a warning to be more diligent in the management
of
court personnel; and
(f) Jude Henritz
Yeong,
Legal Researcher, MTCC, Branch 1, Cebu City be ordered to submit his
explanation
regarding the loss of the complainant’s notice of appeal.
“The Court’s Third
Division
Resolution dated 25 October 2000 adopted the recommendation of [the
OCA]
x x x. The Resolution further required the parties to manifest to the
Court
whether they would like to submit the case on the basis of the
pleadings/records
already filed with respect to the charge of alleged delay of the
respondent
judge in the conduct of preliminary conference and his neglect of duty
relative to the loss of the complainant’s notice of appeal.
“Complainant submitted
his Manifestation on 08 January 2001 with his concurrence to submit the
case on the basis of the records already filed and submitted. He,
however,
appealed for reconsideration on the dismissal of the charges of
ignorance
of the law, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and violation of
R.A.
3019. The Court Third Division in its Resolution dated 31 January 2001
NOTED the complainant’s Manifestation but DENIED the reconsideration
appealed
by the complainant as no substantial arguments were raised to warrant
the
same. The same Resolution referred to this Office for evaluation,
report
and recommendation the letter-explanation, dated 16 December 2000, of
Court
Legal Researcher Jude Henritz Yeong particularly about the missing
notice
of appeal.cralaw:red
“In his explanation,
Court Legal Researcher Yeong stated that he only assumed office on 16
March
1998. Barely a month after, their Branch Clerk of Court left for Manila
to review for the 1998 Bar Examination. Nobody was designated by Judge
Coliflores to perform the duties of the Branch Clerk of Court. He
remembered
that Judge Coliflores asked him to draft an order pertaining to the
notice
of appeal for Civil Case No. R-35137 and thereafter submit the draft
order
for approval and signature.chanrobles virtual law library
“It was only after an
inquiry from the plaintiffs that they found out that the notice of
appeal
was not attached to the records. When asked, Judge Coliflores informed
them that he already signed the notice and had it attached to the
records
of the case. Subsequently, when Yeong was trying to arrange some files
below the table of one of the staff member, the notice of appeal and
the
order granting the appeal was found below a heap of expedientes. Yeong
opined that the alleged loss transpired when the records [were] brought
out from the office of the Judge and before the staff segregated the
copies
of the order. Notably, Yeong was not designated as officer-in-charge so
he was never in control or supervision of the court records.cralaw:red
“In its Memorandum Report
dated 30 May 2001, [the OCA] found no cause to hold Yeong negligent. In
the absence of the branch clerk of court without designation of an
officer-in-charge,
the duties of the former were assumed by Judge Coliflores. He has the
direct
responsibility for the proper discharge of the official function of his
court personnel and may not put blame on his subordinates for his
remissness.chanrobles virtual law library
“[The OCA then] recommended
to the Court that it NOTE with satisfaction the letter-explanation of
Court
Legal Researcher Yeong. Since the records showed that the respondent
judge
had not yet submitted his Comment on the issue of delay in the conduct
of preliminary conference raised by the complainant in his Reply dated
6 May 1999, [the OCA] further recommended that Judge Coliflores be
directed
to forthwith submit his comment thereto.cralaw:red
“The Court Third Division
adopted en toto the abovementioned recommendation x x x in its
Resolution
dated 11 July 2001. Due to the failure of the respondent judge to
comply
with the directive of the Court, another Resolution was issued on 10
March
2003 requiring him to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be [disciplined] for
his failure to comply with the Court’s directive and to file the
required
Comment within ten (10) days from notice.cralaw:red
“On 11 April 2003, the
Third Division of this Court received a letter from Judge Coliflores,
through
fax, requesting a copy of the complainant’s reply dated 6 May 1999. The
request was immediately responded to by Assistant Clerk of Court Lucita
Soriano of the Court Third Division in her letter dated 14 April 2003.cralaw:red
“The comment of respondent
Judge Coliflores was received by [the OCA] on 21 May 2003. Therein,
respondent
judge explained that he applied the provisions on the Rules on
Pre-trial
under Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Court relative to the preliminary
conference of Civil Case No. R-35137. [He said that w]hile he may have
been wrong on this point, an administrative case is not the proper
remedy
for an alleged error committed by the judge in deciding a case x x x.cralaw:red
“The judge likewise
noted that the case is already on appeal in the Court of Appeals and
until
the case is finally terminated, there is yet no basis to pass upon his
liabilities for the charges against him.”[2]
The OCA’s
Recommendation
In its September 3,
2003 Memorandum, the OCA recommended that respondent be
administratively
sanctioned for conducting the preliminary conference in Civil Case No.
R-35137 beyond the period mandated by the Rules
of Court. It said that “[s]uch rules are elementary matters with
which
all dispensers of justice should be conversant.”[3]chanrobles virtual law library
It added that respondent
should also be accountable for losing or misplacing the Notice of
Appeal
of complainant; and for failing for almost two years to submit his
Comment
on the latter’s Reply, as directed by the Supreme Court.cralaw:red
The OCA then recommended
that a fine of P10,000 be meted out to respondent.
The Court’s Ruling
We agree with the OCA,
but modify the penalty consistent with Rule 140.cralaw:red
Respondent’s Administrative
Liability
Courts exist to dispense
and promote justice. The realization of this solemn purpose depends to
a great extent on the intellectual, moral and personal qualities of the
men and women who are called to serve as judges.[4]
Verily, the Code
of Judicial Conduct mandates that they possess the highest degree
of
competence, integrity and independence.[5]
Judicial competence
demands that judges should be proficient in both procedural and
substantive
aspects of the law.[6]
They have to exhibit more than just cursory acquaintance with statutes
and procedural rules and be conversant, as well, with basic legal
principles
and well-settled authoritative doctrines. To the end that they be the
personification
of justice and rule of law,[7]
they should strive for a level of excellence exceeded only by their
passion
for truth. Anything less than this strict standard would subject them
to
administrative sanction.chanrobles virtual law library
In the present case,
respondent judge failed to demonstrate the required competence in
administering
an ejectment case. It must be noted that unlawful detainer and forcible
entry cases are covered by summary procedure[8]
because they involve the disturbance of the social order which must be
restored as promptly as possible. Accordingly, technicalities or
details
of procedure should be carefully avoided.[9]
Respondent also caused
undue delay in dispensing Civil Case No. R-35137. He failed to observe
the period within which to conduct the preliminary conference which,
according
to Section 8 of Rule 70, shall be held “[n]ot later than thirty (30)
days
after the last answer is filed.” In the present case, the preliminary
conference
was conducted more than two years after the filing of the last answer.cralaw:red
In his August 28, 1995
Order,[10]
he acknowledged the filing of the last pleading, scheduled the
“pre-trial
conference” for September 26, 1995, and directed the parties to submit
their “Pre-Trial Briefs” three days before the hearing. He, however,
noted
the filing of defendant’s Pre-Trial Brief, only in his Order[11]
dated November 11, 1997, which stated that “[a]s defendants have
already
filed their pre-trial brief, set the preliminary conference of the
parties
on January 13, 199[8] x x x.”[12]
It is evident that respondent
judge did not observe the period within which to conduct the
preliminary
conference. He was mistaken in “thinking” that Rule 18 on pre-trial was
the provision applicable to the ejectment case.[13]Section 8 of Rule 70 allows the application of Rule 18, but only where
the provisions of the latter are consistent with those of the former,
being
merely secondary thereto.cralaw:red
It must be emphasized
that the adoption of the Rule on Summary Procedure is part of the
commitment
of the judiciary to enforce the constitutional right of litigants to a
speedy disposition of their cases. It was promulgated for the purpose
of
achieving “an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases.”[14]
Any member of the judiciary who causes the delay sought to be prevented
by the Rule[15]
is sanctionable.chanrobles virtual law library
The present respondent
has failed to abide by the provisions of the Rule on Summary Procedure.
He has thereby undermined the wisdom behind it and diminished respect
for
the rule of law.[16]
He thus becomes administratively liable under Rule 140 Section 9, which
sanctions violations of Supreme Court Rules.cralaw:red
Negligence in
the Performance of an Administrative Responsibility
Respondent judge should
also be sanctioned for misplacing complainant’s Notice of Appeal. As
administrative
officers of the courts, judges should organize and supervise court
personnel
to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, as well as the
observance of high standards of public service and fidelity at all
times.[17]
He should adopt a system of records management, so that files are kept
intact despite the temporary absence of the person primarily
responsible
for their custody.cralaw:red
In this case, the misplacement
of the Notice of Appeal indicates gross negligence. Respondent should
have
been more prudent in determining the cause of its temporary loss, which
caused unnecessary inconvenience to complainant, whose right to
appeal
was affected.chanrobles virtual law library
Failure to Follow
the Court’s Directive
Respondent judge belatedly
filed his Comment[18]
on complainant’s Reply, without offering any explanation for his
failure
to comply on time. In a Resolution[19]
dated July 11, 2001, the Court[20]
directed him to submit the Comment within 10 days from receipt of the
Resolution.
It took him almost two years to comply.cralaw:red
It bears stressing that
a disregard of Court directives constitutes grave or serious misconduct.[21]
A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere
request.
It should be complied with promptly and completely. The failure of
respondent
to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in his
character,
but also disrespect for the Court’s lawful order and directive.[22]
Administrative
Penalty
Respondent’s negligence
and violation of a Supreme Court rule and directive are less serious
charges
that may be sanctioned by suspension from office without salary and
other
benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3)
months,
or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.[23]
We note that respondent
has previously been charged with inefficiency in the conduct of the
court’s
business in AM No. MTJ-01-1347 (Tudtud v. Coliflores, decided on
September
18, 2003), in which he was found guilty and consequently fined P1,000.chanrobles virtual law library
Considering that he
has already retired from service, suspension is no longer a feasible
penalty.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, Judge Mamerto
Y. Coliflores of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 1 of Cebu
City, is found guilty of negligence and violation of a Supreme Court
Rule
and directive, for which he is FINED P20,000, to be deducted from his
retirement
benefits.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman),
Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 8-9.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
OCA Memorandum, pp. 1-4; rollo, pp. 161-165.
[3]
Id., pp. 5 & 165.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Spouse Sadik v. Casar, 334 Phil. 1, January 2, 1997.
[5]
Rule 1.01.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Talens-Dabon v. Arceo, 328 Phil. 692, July 25, 1996; Cabulisan v.
Pagalilauan,
358 Phil. 234, October 12, 1998; Adriano v. Villanueva, AM No.
MTJ-99-1232,
February 19, 2003.
[7]
Tabao v. Barataman, 380 SCRA 396, April 11, 2002.
[8]
§3 of Rule 70.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Lariosa v. Bandala, AM No. MTJ-02-1401, August 15, 2003; Tierra Firma
Estate
and Development Corporation v. Quintin, 383 SCRA 508, July 2, 2002;
Javelosa
v. Court of Appeals, 333 Phil. 331, December 10, 1996.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Rollo, pp. 60-61.
[11]
Id., p. 63.
[12]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Comment dated May 9, 2003, p. 2; rollo, p. 144.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Introduction to the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
[15]
Velez v. Flores, AM No. MTJ-01-1366, February 7, 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Pascual v. Jovellanos, 390 SCRA 333, October 4, 2002; Hilario v. Ocampo
III, 371 SCRA 260, December 3, 2001.
[17]
Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Submitted on May 21, 2003; rollo, pp. 143-144.
[19]
Id., p. 142.chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Third Division.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Santos v. Generoso, 336 SCRA 576, July 31, 2000.
[22]
Guerrero v. Deray, AM No. MTJ-02-1466, December 10, 2002.
[23]
§11B of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. |