October 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 11-189-CA-J : October 11, 2011]
COMPLAINT OF MR. DOMINGO C. GAMALINDA AGAINST HON. JOSE C REYES, JR., ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, COURT OF APPEALS
"A. M. OCA IPI No. 11-189-CA-J (Complaint of Mr. Domingo C. Gamalinda against Hon. Jose C Reyes, Jr., Associate Justice, Court of Appeals) - Acting on the Verified Complaint filed by Mr. Domingo C. Gamalinda, the Court DISMISSES the administrative complaint against Court of Appeals Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., since no prima facie case was established.
Domingo Gamalinda imputed judicial misconduct to Justice Reyes on the ground that Demetrio Gamalinda, complainant's son, and his lawyer had not been furnished notices of the Decision of the Court of Appeals, penned by Justice Reyes, which affirmed Demetrio's conviction for acts of lasciviousness. However, the responsibility of sending out notices of the Decision to the parties did not lie with the ponente or even the other members of the appellate court who had voted therein, but with the Division Clerk of Court. Under the Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals, the Division Clerk of Court shall send notices and copies thereof in sealed envelopes to the parties through their counsel, either personally or by registered mail, within one working day from promulgation of a decision or resolution. (Rule VI, Sec. 13 [c]) Hence, there is no basis for investigating Justice Reyes for administrative abuse, since the purported failure to send out notices of the decisions of the Court of Appeals was not attributable to him, as this responsibility did not fall on him.
In any case, that Notices of the Decision of the appellate court has not yet reached Demetrio or his lawyer does not automatically deprive them of a remedy. A Rule 45 Petition to review a decision of the Court of Appeals affirming a conviction by the trial court can be filed within 15 days from receipt of the Notice of the judgment appealed from or of the denial of the petitioner's motion for reconsideration. (Rule 45, Sec. 2) Assuming that no notice of the CA Decision has been received by Demetrio or his lawyer, then the period for availing of a motion for reconsideration or a Rule 45 Petition does not begin to toll. Demetrio, therefore, is still entitled to these remedies, until such notice is actually received.
In any case, whether Demetrio or his lawyer has been maliciously deprived of a notice of the Court of Appeals Decision is an issue that is improper in an administrative complaint against the justice who only penned the Decision. That complainant Domingo Gamalinda expresses no reservation or objection to the substantial merits of the appellate court's resolution of his son's appeal establishes all the more the lack of clear prima facie grounds for his accusation of judicial misconduct.
WHEREFORE, the Verified Complaint against Court of Appeals Justice Jose C. Reyes, Jr., is DISMISSED. There exists no prima facie case to warrant the conduct of further administrative proceedings against him."
Bersamin, J., on official business.
Del Castillo, J., on leave.
Perez, J., on official leave.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA E. VIDAL
Clerk of Court