ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1390-MTJ. November 24, 2004]

SIY vs. TOLETE

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated NOV 24 2004 .

R E S O L U T I O N

A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1390-MTJ (Michael O. Siyvs. Judge Tomas A. Tolete, MCTC, Tuba, Benguet.)

The present administrative complaint stemmed from the alleged failure of the respondent Judge Tomas A. Tolete. MCTC, Tuba, Benguet, to act on the urgent motion to inhibit filed by herein complainant Michael Siy in Civil Case No. 213. The allegations of the complainant were contained in his verified Complaint dated March 4, 2003.

The Office of me Court Administrator (OCA) gave the respondent judge ample opportunity to file his comment on the complaint. However, he failed to do so. Hence, the complaint was submitted for evaluation.

In its Report dated September 28, 2004, the OCA found that the urgent motion to inhibit filed by the complainant was fatally defective as it did not comply with Sections 4, 5 and 6 of Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. As such, it was a mere scrap of paper which should not be accepted for filing and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance. According to the OCA, although the motion was entitled Urgent Motion, it should not be directed to the Clerk of Court but to the parties, and must not merely state that the same is submitted for the consideration of the court upon receipt thereof. Respondent judge, therefore, could not be faulted for not acting on the motion.

With regard to the respondent judge's failure to file his comment on the complaint against him despite receipt of the communications of the Court Administrator requiring him to do so, the OCA deemed it fit to impose a sanction upon the respondent judge. However, considering that the acts complained of can be considered only as a slight offense punishable by reprimand which could no longer be imposed in view of the respondent's compulsory retirement on March 7, 2004, the OCA recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for being moot and academic.

We agree with the OCA that the respondent judge should be penalized for his failure to file his comment on the complaint against him. As we held in Martinez v. Zoleta : ^[1] cralaw

...[T]he resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Moreover, the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference of respondents to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints. ^[2] cralaw

However, while the respondent judge's failure to file his comment is reprehensible and deserves sanction, the penalty of reprimand can no longer be imposed against him in view of his retirement from the service.

WHEREFORE, the instant complaint against respondent Judge Tomas A. Tolete is DISMISSED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw 315 SCRA 438 (1999).

^[2] cralaw Id. at 448-449.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011