September 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > September 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. P-08-2468 : September 21, 2010] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. ATTY. EMMANUEL P. VILLANUEVA, CLERK OF COURT V, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, MANILA ) AND A.M. NO. RTJ-09-2205 (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. HON. AMELIA TRIA-INFANTE, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, MANILA :
[A.M. No. P-08-2468 : September 21, 2010]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. ATTY. EMMANUEL P. VILLANUEVA, CLERK OF COURT V, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, MANILA ) AND A.M. NO. RTJ-09-2205 (OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. HON. AMELIA TRIA-INFANTE, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 9, MANILA
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc issued a Resolution dated SEPTEMBER 21, 2010, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. P-08-2468 [Formerly A.M. No. 07-9-464-RTC] (Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Emmanuel P. Villanueva, Clerk of Court V, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Manila) and A.M. No. RTJ-09-2205 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Amelia Tria-Infante, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Manila).
RESOLUTION
On July 20, 2006 the Court received an anonymous letter,[1] complaining of turtle pace hearing and adjudication of cases at Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, presided over by Judge Amelia Tria-Infante.
An audit team from the Court conducted a judicial audit of Branch 9 from March 1 to 23, 2007. It said in its Memorandum Report that, as of the date of the audit, the branch had a total case load of 691 cases, consisting of 513 criminal cases and 178 civil cases. Of these, 15 criminal cases [2] and 6 civil cases[3] were ready for decision but Judge Infante had failed to resolve the same within the required period. She had also failed to resolve pending incidents in 5 criminal cases[4] and 7 civil cases[5] within the prescribed period.
Further, the audit team noticed the following irregularities: (1) there had been undue delays in the transmittal of warrants of arrest to the Sheriffs Office in 32 criminal cases; (2) the warrants of arrest in 21 criminal cases remained unsigned or unserved; (3) no further action were made for a considerable length of time in 39 criminal cases and 55 civil cases; (4) orders in 6 criminal cases and 12 civil cases had remained unsigned; (5) the hearings in 18 criminal cases and 7 civil cases were cancelled and reset because Judge Infante had a "personal commitment" or had to "pen an important injunction case;" and (6) no transmittal for re-raffle had been made in 4 cases despite orders from the court.
Acting on the Memorandum Report, the Court issued a resolution on September 25, 2007, requiring Judge Infante to explain why she should not be dealt with administratively: a) for failing to decide on time the 15 criminal cases and 6 civil cases stated in the Memorandum Report; b) for failing to resolve on time the pending incidents in 5 criminal cases and 7 civil cases; c) for failing to act on 39 criminal and 56 civil cases for a considerable length of time; and d) for resetting hearings in 18 criminal and 7 civil cases for reasons based on "personal commitment" and on the need to "pen important injunction cases."
The Court also directed Judge Infante a) to decide, within 60 days from notice, the criminal and civil cases that had long been submitted for decision, copy furnished the Court; b) to resolve, within 60 days from receipt of notice, the 5 criminal and 7 civil cases with pending incidents, copy furnished the Court; and c) to immediately take appropriate action on the 94 cases (39 criminal and 55 civil) mentioned in the Memorandum Report that had remained dormant for a considerable length of time.
The Court further directed Atty. Emmanuel P. Villanueva, the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 9 to explain why he should not be dealt with administratively a) for failing to faithfully update Judge Infante regarding the cases that were long overdue for decision; b) for failing to faithfully update her of the pending incidents in the 5 criminal and 7 civil cases that were long overdue for resolution; c) for failing to faithfully reflect in the court's docket inventory for July to December 2006 the status of the 15 criminal and 6 civil cases submitted for decision, particularly the orders submitting the same for decision; d) for failing to apprise Judge Infante of the 39 criminal and 55 civil cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report that had been without action or setting for a considerable length of time; e) for failing to have her sign the orders for issuance of warrant of arrest in the 21 criminal cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report; f) for failing to deliver within a reasonable time the warrants of arrest in 32 criminal cases to the Sheriffs Office; g) for failing to reduce into orders the directives of Judge Infante in 6 criminal and 12 civil cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report; h) for failing to transmit for re-raffle within a reasonable time 4 criminal cases; and i) for failing to implement an efficient system vis-a-vis the safekeeping of court records and documents.
In a letter dated December 19, 2007, Judge Infante submitted her explanation to the accusations against her. She denied that cases in her sala were moving at turtle pace. She claims having adopted a system that would ensure the speedy disposition of cases and the swift enforcement of court's orders despite her heavy case load. Judge Infante informed the Court that she had already reprimanded Atty. Villanueva and her staff for their inefficiencies and required them to buckle down to work to address the grievances against her sala.
Regarding the undecided criminal and civil cases and unresolved incidents, Judge Infante claims that she had not yet exceeded the allowable time since the stenographers had not yet submitted the needed transcripts and, for this reason, she had not yet declared them submitted for decision. Judge Infante also alluded to her failing health, her desire to join the appellate courts, and her prioritization over certain cases as reasons for resetting scheduled hearings.
In his letter of December 21, 2007, Atty. Villanueva echoed some of the reasons of Judge Infante gave. He said that, since the transcripts of the undecided cases had not yet been completed and since such cases were merely inherited from previous presiding judges[7] of Branch 9, the cases are not yet submitted for decision. For this reason, too, the cases were not reflected in the docket inventory of the court. Atty. Villanueva reported the status of the different cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report. He also reported that all warrants of arrest had been signed by Judge Infante and delivered to the Sheriffs Office. Lastly, he stressed that he strived to the best of his abilities to implement an efficient safekeeping of records and documents and in the performance of his duties despite the lack of manpower and office equipment.
In a letter dated January 25, 2008, Judge Infante informed the Court that she had decided 12 out of 15 criminal cases,[8] 5 out of 6 civil cases[9] and resolved 11 out of 12[10] pending incidents in her sala. She also informed the Court that all cases referred to in the Memorandum Report that was reported to be without action were already active cases.
In the resolutions dated June 10, 2008 and October 20, 2009, this Court resolved to docket the administrative matter concerning Atty. Villanueva and Judge Infante and consolidate the cases.
In the administrative matter involving Atty. Villanueva, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), after due evaluation and review concludes that he failed to satisfactorily explain the infractions he committed in connection with his duties and functions as Branch Clerk of Court and recommends his suspension for three months for neglect of duty.
Insofar as the administrative matter involving Judge Infante, the OCA found her guilty of undue delay in rendering decisions or orders pursuant to Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and recommends the imposition of a fine of P20,000.00.
The Issue Presented to the Court
The issue presented to the Court by these consolidated Administrative Matters is whether or not Judge Infante and Atty. Villanueva should be held administratively liable for the infractions noted in the judicial audit.
The Ruling of the Court
While Atty. Villanueva reported the updated status of the cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report and caused to be delivered all court processes to their respective destinations, he gave no explanation for the delays he incurred to begin with.
The Branch Clerk of Court is the administrative officer of the court.[11] He oversees its efficient management. Here, Atty. Villanueva had fallen short of the diligence and care required of him in running administrative affairs of his branch. Only after the judicial audit did he cause the delivery of most, if not all of the existing warrants. More he failed to notify Judge Infante of the decisions and resolutions that were due as well as the cases that had long been inactive, when all courts, including Branch 9, had been mandated to conduct a semestral physical inventory of all pending cases where the status of each of the cases had to be reported.[12] Thus, the incompleteness of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSNs) due to the non-submission of the stenographers or the fact that the cases were inherited from past presiding judges could have been discovered earlier.
The lack of sufficient manpower and equipment, while an inconvenient truth, cannot absolve Atty. Villanueva from liability for not adopting such means and methods as his branch's available resources would permit to ensure that justice is swiftly delivered to those who need it. All courts in the Philippines suffer from the same problems that Atty. Villanueva faced. Still they managed to do well.
Neglect of duty is a less serious offense punishable by suspension for a period of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Since this is the first administrative complaint against Atty. Villanueva, his suspension for three months should be fair.
As for Judge Infante, her request for the dismissal of the administrative complaint against her cannot be granted. No less than the Constitution[13] requires all lower court judges to decide a case within 90 days from submission. The policy adopted by Judge Infante that reckoned the start of the 90-day period from the submission of the stenographers of the TSN is contrary to the provisions of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court provides that upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision.[14] The Court even declared that the absence or incompleteness of the TSN is not a valid excuse for the delay in rendering judgment. Judges should personally take notes of salient portions of the hearings and proceed to prepare decisions without waiting for the TSN.[15] Thus, the policy adopted by Judge Infante is not only illegal but it also perpetuates delay, which the Rules seek to avoid.
We do understand the demands and rigors of being a judge that is why, upon request; We allow an extension of time to decide a case. This, however, was not done by Judge Infante. This omission would make her liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and orders.
We also understand the limits of the human body and we do not fault Judge Infante for succumbing to different illnesses. We, however, find that the resetting of cases due to her desire to become an Associate Justice is unwarranted. Before being an applicant to a higher post, she is foremost a Judge, which she should tend first. While the service is no doubt in need of individuals who has the qualifications like that of Judge Infante, this need is inferior to the needs of thousands of litigants who come to her sala seeking for expedient results.
Lastly, Judge Infante has notified the Court that the cases that were not acted upon for a considerable length of time were already active cases. However, there is no proof presented by Judge Infante on the status of these cases.
Undue delay in rendering a decision is classified as a less serious offense. It carries the penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.[16] Considering that the imposition of the penalty of suspension against Judge Infante would be more detrimental as it will further cause delay in the cases pending in her sala and the fact that this is her first offense, this Court imposes a fine of P11,000.00. Innocent litigants should not suffer for the mistakes and misgivings of others. They have suffered enough.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Emmanuel P. Villanueva, Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 9, GUILTY of Neglect of Duty and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Judge Amelia Tria-Infante, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 9 is found GUILTY of undue delay in rendering decisions or orders and is hereby fined P11,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Further, Judge Infante is hereby DIRECTED to submit, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, the certified true photocopies of any decisions, resolutions, orders, or other actions on all the 39 criminal and 55 civil cases that had been unacted upon for a considerable length of time (those indicated in the Memorandum Report dated August 31, 2007), showing their latest status.
Lastly, Judge Infante is REMINDED that the submission of the TSNs is not the reckoning point to which to start the 90-day period of the Constitution nor does it suspend the running of the regiementary period to decide a case."
Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro and Brion, JJ., on official business.
Perez, J., no part.
Mendoza, J., on official business.
"A.M. No. P-08-2468 [Formerly A.M. No. 07-9-464-RTC] (Office of the Court Administrator v. Atty. Emmanuel P. Villanueva, Clerk of Court V, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Manila) and A.M. No. RTJ-09-2205 (Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Amelia Tria-Infante, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Manila).
RESOLUTION
On July 20, 2006 the Court received an anonymous letter,[1] complaining of turtle pace hearing and adjudication of cases at Branch 9 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, presided over by Judge Amelia Tria-Infante.
An audit team from the Court conducted a judicial audit of Branch 9 from March 1 to 23, 2007. It said in its Memorandum Report that, as of the date of the audit, the branch had a total case load of 691 cases, consisting of 513 criminal cases and 178 civil cases. Of these, 15 criminal cases [2] and 6 civil cases[3] were ready for decision but Judge Infante had failed to resolve the same within the required period. She had also failed to resolve pending incidents in 5 criminal cases[4] and 7 civil cases[5] within the prescribed period.
Further, the audit team noticed the following irregularities: (1) there had been undue delays in the transmittal of warrants of arrest to the Sheriffs Office in 32 criminal cases; (2) the warrants of arrest in 21 criminal cases remained unsigned or unserved; (3) no further action were made for a considerable length of time in 39 criminal cases and 55 civil cases; (4) orders in 6 criminal cases and 12 civil cases had remained unsigned; (5) the hearings in 18 criminal cases and 7 civil cases were cancelled and reset because Judge Infante had a "personal commitment" or had to "pen an important injunction case;" and (6) no transmittal for re-raffle had been made in 4 cases despite orders from the court.
Acting on the Memorandum Report, the Court issued a resolution on September 25, 2007, requiring Judge Infante to explain why she should not be dealt with administratively: a) for failing to decide on time the 15 criminal cases and 6 civil cases stated in the Memorandum Report; b) for failing to resolve on time the pending incidents in 5 criminal cases and 7 civil cases; c) for failing to act on 39 criminal and 56 civil cases for a considerable length of time; and d) for resetting hearings in 18 criminal and 7 civil cases for reasons based on "personal commitment" and on the need to "pen important injunction cases."
The Court also directed Judge Infante a) to decide, within 60 days from notice, the criminal and civil cases that had long been submitted for decision, copy furnished the Court; b) to resolve, within 60 days from receipt of notice, the 5 criminal and 7 civil cases with pending incidents, copy furnished the Court; and c) to immediately take appropriate action on the 94 cases (39 criminal and 55 civil) mentioned in the Memorandum Report that had remained dormant for a considerable length of time.
The Court further directed Atty. Emmanuel P. Villanueva, the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 9 to explain why he should not be dealt with administratively a) for failing to faithfully update Judge Infante regarding the cases that were long overdue for decision; b) for failing to faithfully update her of the pending incidents in the 5 criminal and 7 civil cases that were long overdue for resolution; c) for failing to faithfully reflect in the court's docket inventory for July to December 2006 the status of the 15 criminal and 6 civil cases submitted for decision, particularly the orders submitting the same for decision; d) for failing to apprise Judge Infante of the 39 criminal and 55 civil cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report that had been without action or setting for a considerable length of time; e) for failing to have her sign the orders for issuance of warrant of arrest in the 21 criminal cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report; f) for failing to deliver within a reasonable time the warrants of arrest in 32 criminal cases to the Sheriffs Office; g) for failing to reduce into orders the directives of Judge Infante in 6 criminal and 12 civil cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report; h) for failing to transmit for re-raffle within a reasonable time 4 criminal cases; and i) for failing to implement an efficient system vis-a-vis the safekeeping of court records and documents.
In a letter dated December 19, 2007, Judge Infante submitted her explanation to the accusations against her. She denied that cases in her sala were moving at turtle pace. She claims having adopted a system that would ensure the speedy disposition of cases and the swift enforcement of court's orders despite her heavy case load. Judge Infante informed the Court that she had already reprimanded Atty. Villanueva and her staff for their inefficiencies and required them to buckle down to work to address the grievances against her sala.
Regarding the undecided criminal and civil cases and unresolved incidents, Judge Infante claims that she had not yet exceeded the allowable time since the stenographers had not yet submitted the needed transcripts and, for this reason, she had not yet declared them submitted for decision. Judge Infante also alluded to her failing health, her desire to join the appellate courts, and her prioritization over certain cases as reasons for resetting scheduled hearings.
In his letter of December 21, 2007, Atty. Villanueva echoed some of the reasons of Judge Infante gave. He said that, since the transcripts of the undecided cases had not yet been completed and since such cases were merely inherited from previous presiding judges[7] of Branch 9, the cases are not yet submitted for decision. For this reason, too, the cases were not reflected in the docket inventory of the court. Atty. Villanueva reported the status of the different cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report. He also reported that all warrants of arrest had been signed by Judge Infante and delivered to the Sheriffs Office. Lastly, he stressed that he strived to the best of his abilities to implement an efficient safekeeping of records and documents and in the performance of his duties despite the lack of manpower and office equipment.
In a letter dated January 25, 2008, Judge Infante informed the Court that she had decided 12 out of 15 criminal cases,[8] 5 out of 6 civil cases[9] and resolved 11 out of 12[10] pending incidents in her sala. She also informed the Court that all cases referred to in the Memorandum Report that was reported to be without action were already active cases.
In the resolutions dated June 10, 2008 and October 20, 2009, this Court resolved to docket the administrative matter concerning Atty. Villanueva and Judge Infante and consolidate the cases.
In the administrative matter involving Atty. Villanueva, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), after due evaluation and review concludes that he failed to satisfactorily explain the infractions he committed in connection with his duties and functions as Branch Clerk of Court and recommends his suspension for three months for neglect of duty.
Insofar as the administrative matter involving Judge Infante, the OCA found her guilty of undue delay in rendering decisions or orders pursuant to Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court and Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and recommends the imposition of a fine of P20,000.00.
The Issue Presented to the Court
The issue presented to the Court by these consolidated Administrative Matters is whether or not Judge Infante and Atty. Villanueva should be held administratively liable for the infractions noted in the judicial audit.
The Ruling of the Court
While Atty. Villanueva reported the updated status of the cases mentioned in the Memorandum Report and caused to be delivered all court processes to their respective destinations, he gave no explanation for the delays he incurred to begin with.
The Branch Clerk of Court is the administrative officer of the court.[11] He oversees its efficient management. Here, Atty. Villanueva had fallen short of the diligence and care required of him in running administrative affairs of his branch. Only after the judicial audit did he cause the delivery of most, if not all of the existing warrants. More he failed to notify Judge Infante of the decisions and resolutions that were due as well as the cases that had long been inactive, when all courts, including Branch 9, had been mandated to conduct a semestral physical inventory of all pending cases where the status of each of the cases had to be reported.[12] Thus, the incompleteness of the Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSNs) due to the non-submission of the stenographers or the fact that the cases were inherited from past presiding judges could have been discovered earlier.
The lack of sufficient manpower and equipment, while an inconvenient truth, cannot absolve Atty. Villanueva from liability for not adopting such means and methods as his branch's available resources would permit to ensure that justice is swiftly delivered to those who need it. All courts in the Philippines suffer from the same problems that Atty. Villanueva faced. Still they managed to do well.
Neglect of duty is a less serious offense punishable by suspension for a period of one month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. Since this is the first administrative complaint against Atty. Villanueva, his suspension for three months should be fair.
As for Judge Infante, her request for the dismissal of the administrative complaint against her cannot be granted. No less than the Constitution[13] requires all lower court judges to decide a case within 90 days from submission. The policy adopted by Judge Infante that reckoned the start of the 90-day period from the submission of the stenographers of the TSN is contrary to the provisions of the Rules of Court. The Rules of Court provides that upon admission of the evidence, the case shall be deemed submitted for decision.[14] The Court even declared that the absence or incompleteness of the TSN is not a valid excuse for the delay in rendering judgment. Judges should personally take notes of salient portions of the hearings and proceed to prepare decisions without waiting for the TSN.[15] Thus, the policy adopted by Judge Infante is not only illegal but it also perpetuates delay, which the Rules seek to avoid.
We do understand the demands and rigors of being a judge that is why, upon request; We allow an extension of time to decide a case. This, however, was not done by Judge Infante. This omission would make her liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and orders.
We also understand the limits of the human body and we do not fault Judge Infante for succumbing to different illnesses. We, however, find that the resetting of cases due to her desire to become an Associate Justice is unwarranted. Before being an applicant to a higher post, she is foremost a Judge, which she should tend first. While the service is no doubt in need of individuals who has the qualifications like that of Judge Infante, this need is inferior to the needs of thousands of litigants who come to her sala seeking for expedient results.
Lastly, Judge Infante has notified the Court that the cases that were not acted upon for a considerable length of time were already active cases. However, there is no proof presented by Judge Infante on the status of these cases.
Undue delay in rendering a decision is classified as a less serious offense. It carries the penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.[16] Considering that the imposition of the penalty of suspension against Judge Infante would be more detrimental as it will further cause delay in the cases pending in her sala and the fact that this is her first offense, this Court imposes a fine of P11,000.00. Innocent litigants should not suffer for the mistakes and misgivings of others. They have suffered enough.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, this Court finds Atty. Emmanuel P. Villanueva, Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 9, GUILTY of Neglect of Duty and is hereby SUSPENDED for a period of three (3) months with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Judge Amelia Tria-Infante, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 9 is found GUILTY of undue delay in rendering decisions or orders and is hereby fined P11,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Further, Judge Infante is hereby DIRECTED to submit, within five (5) days from receipt hereof, the certified true photocopies of any decisions, resolutions, orders, or other actions on all the 39 criminal and 55 civil cases that had been unacted upon for a considerable length of time (those indicated in the Memorandum Report dated August 31, 2007), showing their latest status.
Lastly, Judge Infante is REMINDED that the submission of the TSNs is not the reckoning point to which to start the 90-day period of the Constitution nor does it suspend the running of the regiementary period to decide a case."
Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Leonardo-De Castro and Brion, JJ., on official business.
Perez, J., no part.
Mendoza, J., on official business.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) FELIPA B.ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) FELIPA B.ANAMA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Rollo p. 41.
[2] The criminal cases ranged from 1 year to 9 years overdue.
[3] The civil cases ranged from 2 to 8 years overdue.
[4] Incidents in criminal cases have been pending for as long as four years.
[5] Incidents in civil cases have been pending for as long as seven years.
[6] The lapse of time ranged from one month to one year.
[7] Revealed by Atty. Villanueva as Judge, now Acting Presiding Justice Edilberto G. Sandoval of the Sandiganbayan (from 1986 - March 11, 1996) and (Ret.) Judge Zeus C. Abrogar.
[8] One case, Criminal Case 05-238143, was archived, while Criminal Case 96-147976-77 was not decided because the court had to appoint a new PAO lawyer, as counsel for the accused and directed the PAO lawyer to submit a forma! offer of evidence.
[9] Civil Case 94-69403 was not decided because the TSN was incomplete; hence, Judge Infante issued an Order dated January 22, 2008 directing the stenographer to submit the TSN of the case.
[10] Criminal Case 95-140968 was not resolved because the TSN was incomplete; hence, Judge Infante issued an Order dated January 22, 2008 directing the court stenographers to transcribe and submit the TSN of the case.
[11] The 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court.
[12] See Administrative Circular 10-94, June 29, 1994.
[13] Philippine Constitution, Article VIII, Section 15 [1].
[14] Section 5(g), Rule 30.
[15] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Trocino, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1936, May 29, 2007, 523 SCRA 262,271.
[16] Salvador v. Limsiaco, Jr., AM. No. MTJ-08-1695, April 16,2008,551 SCRA 373, 377.
