Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2012 > June 2012 Resolutions > [A.M. No. RTJ-12-2315 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3309-RTJ) : June 13, 2012] ALAN F. PAGUIA v. JUDGE LEOPOLDO MARIO P. LEGAZPI, PRESIDING JUDGE, ALEXANDER A. RIVERA, CLERK OF COURT, AND MA. THERESA V. RODRIGUEZ, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY. :




THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-12-2315 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3309-RTJ) : June 13, 2012]

ALAN F. PAGUIA v. JUDGE LEOPOLDO MARIO P. LEGAZPI, PRESIDING JUDGE, ALEXANDER A. RIVERA, CLERK OF COURT, AND MA. THERESA V. RODRIGUEZ, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY.

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated 13 June 2012, which reads as follows:cralaw

A.M. No. RTJ-12-2315 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3309-RTJ](Alan F. Paguia v. JUDGE LEOPOLDO MARIO P. LEGAZPI, Presiding Judge, ALEXANDER A. RIVERA, Clerk of Court, and MA. THERESA V. RODRIGUEZ, all of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Puerto Princesa City.) - Before this Court is an Administrative Complaint[1] filed by Alan F. Paguia against respondents Judge Leopoldo Mario P. Legazpi (Judge Legazpi), Presiding Judge; Atty. Alexander A. Rivera, Clerk of Court; both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Puerto Princesa City for gross neglect of duty and violation of Section 5 (a) and (d), Republic Act No. (R.A.) 6713 (Code of Conduct for Public Officials), in relation to Civil Case No. 4213, entitled Spouses Rufino Co and Lucita Veloso Co v. Development Bank of the Philippines, et. al.

On August 7, 2007, in the course of the trial proceedings in the aforementioned case, plaintiffs, through counsel, filed an Omnibus Motion. On September 4, 2007, defendants submitted their Comment. On September 27, 2007, the plaintiffs filed their Consolidated Reply. However, in a Resolution dated June 30, 2008, respondent Judge Legazpi resolved to deny the Omnibus Motion. On May 14, 2009, or more than 10 months from the issuance of the Resolution dated June 30, 2008, respondent clerk of court, by registered mail sent a copy of the resolution to the plaintiffs' counsel.

Complainant then charged respondent judge of delaying the resolution of the omnibus motion for more than eight (8) months from the time it was submitted for resolution. He likewise charged respondent branch clerk of court Atty. Rivera of delay in releasing the resolution to the parties for more than ten (10) months.

On December 7, 2009, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed respondents to file their respective comments on the complaint against them.

In his Comment dated February 5, 2010, respondent Judge Legazpi denied the alleged delay in the resolution of the Omnibus Motion. He contended that complainant Paguia was mistaken in his reckoning date, and that in fact the Omnibus Motion was actually submitted for resolution only on March 28, 2008, when the defendant Register of Deeds (RD) for Puerto Princesa, Palawan, filed its Answer. He also explained that the Omnibus Motion involved many parties, and raised numerous issues that will take some time to resolve.

Respondent judge further averred that, pending the resolution of the Omnibus Motion, there were other equally important incidents in the case, such as the Motion to Declare in Default the Defendant RD, and the Motion to Excuse Defendant RD from participating in the case, which required his attention as well.

Respondent judge also disclosed that at the time of the issuance of the subject Resolution, the court had no branch clerk of court, since the latter did not apply to renew his temporary appointment, and he left the service on the date of the filing of his comment. Thus, even the transmittal of subject Resolution to the parties was then overlooked, because that was the time when the court was operating on a long continuous lack of vital personnel. It was only later on, after respondent branch clerk of court's assumption of office, that it was discovered that the subject Resolution had not yet been released.

Respondent judge asserted that there was no ill motive at all to favor anybody in the delay in the release of the resolution, and he apologized for the inconvenience that the delay may have caused all concerned parties.

For his part, Atty. Rivera, in his Comment, averred that he assumed office on March 16, 1999; thus, he was not yet the branch clerk of court of the RTC, Branch 49, Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, when the subject resolution was submitted for resolution, resolved, and transmitted to the parties.

Atty. Rivera further pointed out that the clerks of court during that period were: Officer-in-Charge Ma. Theresa V. Lim (now Rodriguez), from March 2006 to September 26, 2007 and August 2008 to March 15, 2009, and Atty. Ludybeth Batoy, from September 2007 to August 22, 2008.

In respondent judge's Supplementary Comment, he submitted a copy of the Answer filed by the RD for Puerto Princesa City, Palawan, to prove that the period for the resolution of the Omnibus Motion and all other motions arising from it, should be reckoned from the date when said answer was received by the Court.

Meanwhile, in her Comment, Ma. Theresa V. Rodriguez, Legal Researcher II, averred that the release and transmittal of the resolution of the subject Omnibus Motion was overlooked, because the court was undermanned at the time. She explained that the court employees were overloaded with work, because of the non-renewal of the appointment of former clerks of court, and the other vacancies in the court. She further claimed that she was designated acting clerk of court, court interpreter and assisting sheriff, in addition to her regular duties as court legal researcher.

In a Memorandum[2] to the Court, the OCA recommended that the instant complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. It further found that respondent Judge Leopoldo Mario P. Legazpi was guilty of undue delay in resolving a motion, and recommended that he be fined in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php10,000.00). Respondent Ma. Theresa V. Rodriguez was recommended to be admonished to be more circumspect in the performance of her duties. However, insofar as the complaint against Atty. Alexander A. Rivera, the same was recommended for dismissal for lack of merit.

On April 18, 2012, the Court resolved to adopt and approve the recommendation of the OCA to redocket the complaint against respondent judge. It likewise dismissed the complaint against Atty. Rivera and admonished Rodriguez.

We disagree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.

In the instant case, complainant manifested that the Omnibus Motion was deemed submitted for resolution on November 23, 2007. However, he pointed out that it was only on June 30, 2008 that respondent judge was able to resolve the motion. He added that during the trial proceedings on November 23, 2007, the Omnibus Motion was considered submitted for resolution, to which he quoted the pertinent portion of the Resolution dated November 23, 2007, to wit: 

Thereafter, the Court declared that since there were no other matters to be taken up, the omnibus motion and all the comments, oppositions and replies filed in relation were to be considered submitted for resolution, except, as regards the motion to declare in default defendant RD, which motion was considered withdrawn.  (Emphasis supplied)

However, after a closer perusal of the subject Resolution dated June 30, 2008, it appeared that while plaintiffs therein moved for the withdrawal of the Motion to Declare the Register of Deeds in Default, in a subsequent Order the court denied defendant Register of Deeds' motion to be excluded from participating in the subject case. Thus, even without delving on the merits of the subject case, it can easily be inferred that the Register of Deeds remained to be one of the defendants in the aforementioned case. The pertinent portion of the Resolution dated June 30, 2008 reads: 

Thereafter, the Court declared that since there were no other matters to be taken up, the omnibus motion and all the comments, oppositions and replies filed in relation were to be considered submitted for resolution, except, as regards the motion to declare in default defendant RD, which motion was considered withdrawn. 

On 14 December 2007, defendant RD filed its manifestation and motion, which the Court received on 20 December 2007, in which it stated that since it was being impleaded as mere nominal party, it should be excluded from plaintiffs' prayer in the complaint asking that it be held solidarity liable with the other defendants for payment of damages in favor of plaintiffs. It likewise requested that it be excused from further participation in this case. 

The Court, in its 18 January 2008 order, directed plaintiff's to file their comment on the above manifestation and motion of defendant RD. Subsequently, in its Order of 20 February 2008, it denied said defendant's motion to be excused from further participation in this case and gave it, instead, 15 days from notice of said latter order to submit its answer, which it did on March 18, 2008.  (Emphasis supplied.)

Thus, in view of the foregoing, we cannot fault respondent judge from assuming that the reckoning point should be March 18, 2008 as it was when defendant RD submitted their Answer.

Since respondent judge's good faith has not been put in issue, the presumption of regularity in the performance of his official duties must be conceded to him.[3]

We cannot excuse respondent judge for the delay in the transmittal of the resolution. His staffs or plaintiffs' failure to inform him sooner that the plaintiffs have yet to receive the copy of the order will not shield him from liability. The proper and efficient court management is the responsibility of the judge, and he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions. He cannot take refuge behind the lack of personnel or mismanagement of his court personnel, since the latter are not the guardians of a judge's responsibilities. A judge should be the master of his own domain and take responsibility for the lapses of his subordinates.[4]

However, being the first offense of respondent judge, the same should be taken to mitigate his administrative liability; hence, we deemed it proper to merely admonish respondent judge.cralaw

WHEREFORE, JUDGE LEOPOLDO MARIO P. LEGAZPI is hereby ADMONISHED  for being remiss in the performance of his duties. Respondent is, likewise, WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty. (Peralta, J., Acting Chairperson, per Special Order No. 1228 dated June 6, 2012; Villarama, Jr., J., Acting Member, in lieu of Justice Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No. 1229 dated June 6, 2012.)

SO ORDERED. 

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Division Clerk of Court

Endnotes:


[1] Rollo, pp. 1-8.

[2] Id. at 135-141. 

[3] Baguyo v. Leviste, A.M. No. 2224-CFI, August 31, 1981, 107 SCRA 35, 39. 

[4] Bacolot v. Pa´┐Żo, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2241, March 9, 2011, 645 SCRA 17, 21-22.




Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






June-2012 Jurisprudence                 

  • [A.C. No. 7565 : June 13, 2012] MILA C. ARCHE v. ATTY. SOFRONIO CLAVECILLA, JR.

  • [G.R. No. 195193 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS JUANITO METRE, JR. A.K.A. "LUCIO", APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 190316 : June 13, 2012] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, APPELLEE, VERSUS ZALDY C. RAFER @ SALVADOR RAFER, APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 195427 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, PLAINTIFF APPELLEE, VERSUS REMEDIOS CAPULE Y MADAYAG, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 181427 : June 13, 2012] JOMIL ENTERPRISES, INC. v. SPOUSES GLORIA AND JULIAN C. CARGULLO

  • [G.R. No. 171243 : June 13, 2012] SPOUSES ISAGANI CASTRO AND DIOSDADA CASTRO v. CONCORDIA BARTOLOME AND VICTORIA BARTOLOME

  • [G.R. No. 195775 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARITES ROBLES Y LARIOS

  • [G.R. No. 195526 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ROLANDO ALBURO AND MICHAEL CARVAJAL ACCUSED; ROLANDO ALBURO, ACCUSED-APPELLANT.

  • [G.R. No. 199206 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. OMAR WANDAY Y AMPASO

  • [G.R. No. 192548 : June 13, 2012] ANTONIO T. CHU v. SPOUSES ALFRED & LAUREANA ESTOE, FELIX GRAVIDEZ, ALFREDO GRAVIDEZ, ANGELO VIOLENA, ARACELI SORIA AND FRANCISCO CALONGE

  • [G.R. No. 175228 : June 13, 2012] ALFREDO M. ABIERTAS v. JOSE C. LATORRE

  • [G.R. No. 172899 : June 13, 2012] NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. HEIRS OF ZACARIAS ALICANDO, REPRESENTED BY BERNARDINA ALICANDO, ADMINISTRATOR

  • [A.M. No. P-10-2870 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3235-P) : June 13, 2012] PRESTIDIO HAIR SALON CO., REPRESENTED BY MARITA L. ESTABALAYA v. EFREN P. LUNA, SHERIFF III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 37, QUEZON CITY.

  • [A.M. No. RTJ-12-2315 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3309-RTJ) : June 13, 2012] ALAN F. PAGUIA v. JUDGE LEOPOLDO MARIO P. LEGAZPI, PRESIDING JUDGE, ALEXANDER A. RIVERA, CLERK OF COURT, AND MA. THERESA V. RODRIGUEZ, ALL OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY.

  • [G.R. No. 199398 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GEORGE VELO Y BALBAS

  • [G.R. No. 199220 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ISMAIL DALAMBAN MAGDATU

  • [G.R. No. 175016 : June 13, 2012] BANCO DE ORO UNIVERSAL BANK v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • [G.R. No. 189103 : June 13, 2012] PRIMITIVO R. DOMINGO, JR., TERESA D. SANDERS, DANILO R. DOMINGO, IRENEO R. DOMINGO, ROSARIO DOMINGO-LACSON, LORETA DOMINGO-PANIS, MARY ANN R. DOMINGO, AMADOR R. DOMINGO, LYDIA T. DOMINGO, MICHELLE D. DETITA, SERGIO T. DOMINGO, JR. AND JENNILYN T. DOMINGO v. ARNULFO MANZON, AMELIA MANZON-PANGANIBAN, ORLANDO MANZON, ADORACION MANZON-PESTANO, MILAGROS MANZON-TOLENTINO, RIZALINA MANZON-MARZAN, QUIRINO MANZON, FELICISIMA MANZON-SANTIAGO AND BENITA MANZON-TINIO

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 181609 : June 13, 2012] ASIAN TERMINALS, INC. v. PHILAM INSURANCE CO., INC.

  • [G.R. No. 201412 : June 13, 2012] HENRY DEMANDACO v. FRAILENE A. DEMANDACO AND MELBA D. LEGASA

  • [G.R. No. 198790 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JONIE ORCALES Y LANAGA

  • [G.R. No. 166461 : June 13, 2012] HEIRS OF LORENZO AND CARMEN VIDAD AND AGVID CONSTRUCTION CO., INC. v. LAND BANK OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 188850 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JUANITO MONTES Y CABONILAS

  • [G.R. No. 182524 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALFREDO PINEDA Y BORJA

  • [G.R. No. 196008 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MOHAMAD IBRAHIM Y MALIGA

  • [G.R. No. 194462 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. GILFREDO FAUSTINO Y MENDOZA

  • [G.R. No. 198017 : June 13, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. EMMANUEL RAMOS Y CARBONEL ALIAS "ENGOL"

  • [G.R. No. 199101 : June 13, 2012] MA. REGINA DELARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, SPOUSES MERLYN S. UY AND GOHOC P. UY

  • [G.R. No. 189947 : June 13, 2012] MANILA PAVILION HOTEL, OWNED AND OPERATED BY ACESITE (PHILS.) HOTEL CORPORATION V. HENRY DELADA

  • [G.R. No. 200569 : June 13, 2012] PACIFICO MENDIGO Y GALLENO, PETITIONER, v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, RESPONDENT.

  • [G.R. No. 199068 : June 13, 2012] LAUREANA P. BORRES v. SISTER ANGELINA M. FERNANDO

  • [G.R. No. 194070 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. BENJAMIN GALICIA Y ROBLAS

  • [G.R. No. 188726 : June 18, 2012] CRESENCIO C. MILLA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND MARKET PURSUITS, INC. REPRESENTED BY CARLO V. LOPEZ.

  • [G.R. No. 192085 : June 18, 2012] CARIDAD SEGARRA SAZON v. LETECIA VASQUEZ-MENANCIO, REPRESENTED BY ATTORNEY-IN-FACT EDGAR S. SEGARRA.

  • [UDK-14595 : June 18, 2012] LOLITO BORJA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES AND ELIZABETH L. URBANO.

  • [G.R. No. 196971 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LOURDES AGAPOR Y AZUELA, A.K.A. "ODETTE".

  • [G.R. No. 196985 : June 18, 2012] ALEXANDER G. CASTRO, PETITIONER, VERSUS GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (GSIS) AND HONORABLE ROBERT VERGARA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDENT AND GENERAL MANAGER OF GSIS, RESPONDENTS.

  • [G.R. No. 201183 : June 18, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MARIANO BERSABE

  • [A.C. No. 8178 : June 18, 2012] NAPOLEON CHIU v. ATTY. ALAN A. LEYNES

  • [A.M. No. 11-8-151-RTC : June 19, 2012] RE: BURNING OF THE HALL OF JUSTICE, IPIL, ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY

  • [A.M. No. 14265-Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS UNDER REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF JUDGE ERNESTO D. MERCADO, RTC, BRANCH 3, BATANGAS CITY; JUDGE SIMON D. ENCINAS, RTC, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY; JUDGE PORFIRIO A. PARIAN, RTC, BRANCH 33, ILOILO CITY; JUDGE SANTIAGO F. BAUTISTA, JR., MTCC, SAN JOSE CITY, NUEVA ECIJA; AND JUDGE PEDRO R. SUYAT, MCTC, NATIVIDAD, PANGASINAN

  • [A.M. No. P-04-1924 : June 19, 2012] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL; FLAVIANO D. BALGOS, JR., ET AL. VS. JUSTAFINA HOPE T. LAYA, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. 14297- Ret. : June 19, 2012] RE: APPLICATION FOR SURVIVORSHIP PENSION BENEFITS PURSUANT TO REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9946 OF MRS. NORA L. HERRERA, SURVIVING SPOUSE OF THE LATE HON. MANUEL C. HERRERA, FORMER ASSOCIATE JUSTICE OF THE COURT OF APPEALS

  • [A.C. No. 3375 : June 20, 2012] FEDENCIO BALICOLON v. ATTY. LAWRENCE CORDOVA

  • [G.R. No. 170046 : June 20, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. MAXIMO A. BORJE, JR., ET AL.

  • [A.C. No. 6998 : June 20, 2012] CLARITA O. SANTIANO v. ATTY. TEODULO PUNZALAN.

  • [G.R. No. 192904 : June 20, 2012] ELADIA LIMBO v. ELIZABETH MYRNA AGRIPA-MANEGDEG, IN HER CAPACITY AS SURVIVING HEIR AND AS SUBSTITUTE FOR DECEASED SPS. MARCELO AGRIPA AND LYDIA AGRIPA.

  • [G.R. No. 201560 : June 20, 2012] DR. JOSE CESAR CABRERA v. AMECO CONTRACTORS RENTAL, INC.

  • [G.R. No. 200939 : June 25, 2012] SPOUSES CARMELO, JR. AND ELIZABETH AFRICA, PETITIONERS, VERSUS BANK OF COMMERCE, THE PURPORTED TRANSFEREE OF TRADERS ROYAL BANK, RESPONDENT.

  • [A.C. No. 6332 : June 26, 2012] RE: SUPREME COURT RESOLUTION DATED APRIL 28, 2003 IN G.R. NO. 145817 AND G.R. NO. 145822 (ATTY. MAGDALENO M. PEÑA, RESPONDENT)

  • [G.R. No. 139472 : June 26, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. DELFIN S. RODRIGO

  • [A.M. No. 12-6-110-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: REQUEST OF CLERK OF COURT CLARENCE G. CHERREGUINE, RTC, BRANCH 42, BALANGIGA, EASTERN SAMAR, TO APPEAR AS COUNSEL FOR HIS FATHER

  • [A.M. No. 12-5-89-RTC : June 26, 2012] RE: QUERY OF EXECUTIVE JUDGE JOCELYN SUNDIANG DILIG, RTC, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY, AS TO WHO MAY RESOLVE THE PETITION FOR RENEWAL OF THE NOTARIAL COMMISSION OF ATTY. CONRADO B. LAGMAN AND THE OPPOSITION THERETO

  • [G.R. No. 196530 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. LUISITO TULANG Y LLANITA, A.K.A "LOUIE"

  • [G.R. No. 175779 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VIRGINIA MENDOZA Y ARBO @ CRIS

  • [G.R. No. 181323 : June 27, 2012] LILIAN MANTO AND EMMANUEL FAUSTINA v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [G.R. No. 199493 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. HERMIE ASPACIO Y MAYOLA

  • [G.R. No. 196490 : June 27, 2012] LEONARDO IGOT v. BANCO SAN JUAN

  • [G.R. No. 188778 : June 27, 2012] ANTONIO HERMANO v. OCTAVIO ALVAREZ, JR., LEONORA CASTRO-BATAC, GILBERTO C. CASTRO, JR., MANUEL C. CASTRO, CONSUELO CASTRO-CASTRO, JAKE CASTRO, MA. ELISA CASTRO-VILLANUEVA AND ROSELINO CASTRO

  • [G.R. No. 192817 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ANGELITO MALABANAN Y ANAHAN

  • [G.R. No. 185165 : June 27, 2012] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. JOSE MACAWILI Y PALLER.

  • [G.R. No. 182210 : June 27, 2012] PAZ T. BERNARDO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES.

  • [G.R. No. 179902 : June 27, 2012] METROPOLITAN BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. RODOLFO PASCUAL, SR. & RODOLFO PASCUAL, JR.

  • [A.M. No. MTJ-07-1687 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 99-830-MTJ) : June 27, 2012] DOMINGO B. PANTIG v. JUDGE PASCUALA CLEOFE G. CANLAS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT [MTC], SASMUAN, PAMPANGA.