ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 









 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
August-2001 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 126899 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELICITO T. BARBOSA

  • G.R. No. 128137 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO HAMTO

  • G.R. No. 131203 August 2, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GUILLERMO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 137473 August 2, 2001 - ESTELITO V. REMOLONA v. CSC

  • G.R. Nos. 141702-03 August 2, 2001 - CATHAY PACIFIC AIRWAYS v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 128816 & 139979-80 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO P. CABILTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131817 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE L. DOMINGO

  • G.R. Nos. 133791-94 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CORNELIO SUPNAD

  • G.R. No. 135065 August 8, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENNY CABANGCALA, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 4982 August 9, 2001 - KATRINA JOAQUIN CARIÑO v. ARTURO DE LOS REYES

  • A.M. No. 01-2-47-RTC August 9, 2001 - RE: JUDGE GUILLERMO L. LOJA,

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365 August 9, 2001 - CESINA EBALLA v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. P-01-1495 August 9, 2001 - ESMERALDO D. VISITACION v. GREDAM P. EDIZA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1506 August 9, 2001 - JOSEFINA MERONTOS Vda. de SAYSON v. OSCAR E. ZERNA

  • A.M. No. P-01-1489 August 9, 2001 - CATALINO BAUTISTA, ET AL. v. AMELITA O. MENDOZA

  • G.R. No. 110740 August 9, 2001 - NDC-GUTHRIE PLANTATIONS, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112485 August 9, 2001 - EMILIA MANZANO v. MIGUEL PEREZ SR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129209 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESEMIEL MOSQUERRA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134565 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. LUDIVINO MIANA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138472-73 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NOEL PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 138964 August 9, 2001 - VICENTE RELLOSA, ET AL. v. GONZALO PELLOSIS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139411 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AGAPITO TORALBA

  • G.R. No. 139532 August 9, 2001 - REGAL FILMS v. GABRIEL CONCEPCION

  • G.R. No. 139665 August 9, 2001 - MA. VILMA S. LABAD v. UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140347 August 9, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO OLITA

  • G.R. No. 142546 August 9, 2001 - ANASTACIO FABELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142838 August 9, 2001 - ABELARDO B. LICAROS v. ANTONIO P. GATMAITAN

  • G.R. No. 143881 August 9, 2001 - DANILO EVANGELISTA v. PEDRO SISTOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143949 August 9, 2001 - ATCI OVERSEAS CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144089 August 9, 2001 - CONCORDE HOTEL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126480 August 10, 2001 - MARIA TIN v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 129162 August 10, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLY FIGURACION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130998 August 10, 2001 - MARUBENI CORP. ET AL. v. FELIX LIRAG

  • G.R. Nos. 137934 & 137936 August 10, 2001 - BATANGAS LAGUNA TAYABAS BUS COMPANY, ET AL. v. BENJAMIN M. BITANGA. ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143673 August 10, 2001 - CONRADO TUAZON, ET AL. v. ERNESTO GARILAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144708 August 10, 2001 - RAFAEL ALBANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146724 August 10, 2001 - GIL TAROJA VILLOTA v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136266 August 13, 2001 - EUTIQUIO A. PELIGRINO v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1612 August 14, 2001 - MARCO FRANCISCO SEVILLEJA v. ANTONIO N. LAGGUI

  • A.M. No. P-00-1438 August 14, 2001 - JUNN F. FLORES v. ROGER S. CONANAN

  • G.R. No. 135482 August 14, 2001 - ORLANDO SALVADOR v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136192 August 14, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141617 August 14, 2001 - ADALIA B. FRANCISCO and MERRYLAND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION v. RITA C. MEJIA

  • G.R. No. 142276 August 14, 2001 - FLORENTINO GO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142662 August 14, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JERRY FERRER

  • A.C. No. 5486 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: ATTY. DAVID BRIONES.

  • A.M. RTJ No. 89-403 August 15, 2001 - MOLINTO D. PAGAYAO v. FAUSTO H. IMBING

  • A.M. No. 96-9-332-RTC August 15, 2001 - DIRECTOR, PNP NARCOTICS COMMAND v. JAIME N. SALAZAR

  • A.M. No. P-99-1311 August 15, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ALBERTO V. GARONG

  • G.R. Nos. 113822-23 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RAUL L. PABLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118492 August 15, 2001 - GREGORIO H. REYES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120468 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOPE B. LIWANAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128177 August 15, 2001 - ROMAN SORIANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129295 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDWIN MORIAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129598 August 15, 2001 - PNB MADECOR v. GERARDO C. UY

  • G.R. No. 130360 August 15, 2001 - WILSON ONG CHING KIAN CHUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136834 August 15, 2001 - FELIX SENDON, ET AL. v. FRATERNIDAD O. RUIZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137271 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. REYNALDO CORRE JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137509 August 15, 2001 - PEVET ADALID FELIZARDO, ET AL v. SIEGFREDO FERNANDEZ

  • G.R. Nos. 137969-71 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RAFAEL SALALIMA

  • G.R. No. 139337 August 15, 2001 - MA. CARMINIA C. ROXAS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139420 August 15, 2001 - ROBERTO R. SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140900 & 140911 August 15, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODERICK LICAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143340 August 15, 2001 - LILIBETH SUNGA-CHAN, ET AL v. LAMBERTO T. CHUA

  • G.R. No. 144813 August 15, 2001 - GOLD LINE TRANSIT v. LUISA RAMOS

  • G.R. No. 147270 August 15, 2001 - IN RE: PETE C. LAGRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1565 August 16, 2001 - FEDERICO S. BERNARDO v. PATERNO G. TIAMSON

  • G.R. No. 119900 August 16, 2001 - SUNNY MOTORS SALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121897 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GIL TEMPLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126200 August 16, 2001 - DEV’T. BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126926 August 16, 2001 - RAMON P. ARON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127543 August 16, 2001 - INTERNATIONAL PIPES, ET AL. v. F. F. CRUZ & CO.

  • G.R. No. 132155 August 16, 2001 - ARAS-ASAN TIMBER CO. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134292 August 16, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCO MORALES

  • G.R. No. 136365 August 16, 2001 - ENRIQUE R. CAMACHO, ET AL. v. PHIL. NAT’L. BANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136780 August 16, 2001 - JEANETTE D. MOLINO v. SECURITY DINERS INTERNATIONAL CORP.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1597 August 20, 2001 - WILSON ANDRES v. ORLANDO D. BELTRAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-94-1131 August 20, 2001 - MIGUEL ARGEL v. HERMINIA M. PASCUA

  • G.R. No. 110055 August 20, 2001 - ASUNCION SAN JUAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111685 August 20, 2001 - DAVAO LIGHT & POWER CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131866 August 20, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS DOCTOLERO

  • G.R. No. 132174 August 20, 2001 - GUALBERTO CASTRO v. RICARDO GLORIA

  • G.R. No. 132684 August 20, 2001 - HERNANI N. FABIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134718 August 20, 2001 - ROMANA INGJUGTIRO v. LEON V. CASALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142401 August 20, 2001 - ANDREW TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137299 August 21, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO NANAS

  • G.R. No. 138869 August 21, 2001 - DAVID SO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140519 August 21, 2001 - PHIL. RETIREMENT AUTHORITY v. THELMA RUPA

  • G.R. No. 130817 August 22, 2001 - PRESIDENTIAL AD HOC FACT-FINDING COMMITTEE ON BEHEST LOANS v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138403 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLLY C. ABULENCIA

  • G.R. Nos. 141712-13 August 22, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDMUNDO M. BOHOL

  • G.R. No. 143867 August 22, 2001 - PLDT v. CITY OF DAVAO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128628 August 23, 2001 - ILDEFONSO SAMALA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133749 August 23, 2001 - HERNANDO R. PEÑALOSA v. SEVERINO C. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 133789 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO P. CHUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136506 August 23, 2001 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137199-230 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GEORGE J. ALAY-AY

  • G.R. No. 137842 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO H. CATUBIG

  • G.R. No. 138588 August 23, 2001 - FAR EAST BANK & TRUST COMPANY v. DIAZ REALTY INC.

  • G.R. No. 138022 August 23, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO A. FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 144142 August 23, 2001 - YOLANDA AGUIRRE v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138298 & 138982 August 24, 2001 - RAOUL B. DEL MAR v. PAGCOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131609 August 27, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO PUERTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1571 August 28, 2001 - JESUS GUILLAS v. RENATO D. MUÑEZ

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1645 August 28, 2001 - VICTORINO S. SIANGHIO, JR. v. BIENVENIDO L. REYES

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1626 August 28, 2001 - JOSELITO D. FRANI v. ERNESTO P. PAGAYATAN

  • G.R. Nos. 100633 & 101550 August 28, 2001 - SOCORRO ABELLA SORIANO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114118 August 28, 2001 - SIMEON BORLADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125728 August 28, 2001 - MARIA ALVAREZ VDA. DE DELGADO, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129960 August 28, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CARIÑO

  • G.R. No. 131175 August 28, 2001 - JOVITO VALENZUELA, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133056 August 28, 2001 - FACUNDO T. BAUTISTA v. PUYAT VINYL PRODUCTS

  • G.R. No. 140812 August 28, 2001 - CANDIDO ALFARO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143256 August 28, 2001 - RODOLFO FERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. ROMEO FERNANDEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144653 August 28, 2001 - BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • A.M. No. P-00-1415-MeTC August 30, 2001 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. TERESITA Q. ORBIGO-MARCELO

  • G.R. No. 111709 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER P. TULIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119811 August 30, 2001 - SOCORRO S. TORRES, ET AL. v. DEODORO J. SISON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123980 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL CALIMLIM

  • G.R. No. 127905 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO REMUDO

  • G.R. No. 129093 August 30, 2001 - JOSE D. LINA, ET AL. v. FRANCISCO DIZON PAÑO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133113 August 30, 2001 - EDGAR H. ARREZA v. MONTANO M. DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 136280 August 30, 2001 - ORCHARD REALTY and DEV’T CORP. v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139083 August 30, 2001 - FLORENCIA PARIS v. DIONISIO A. ALFECHE

  • G.R. No. 140229 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HENRY BALMOJA

  • G.R. No. 140995 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO M. REGALA

  • G.R. No. 141128 August 30, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORPIANO DELOS SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 141283 August 30, 2001 - SEGOVIA DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. J.L. DUMATOL REALTY

  • G.R. No. 144442 August 30, 2001 - JESUS SALVATIERRA v. THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • A. M. No. 00-7-299-RTC August 31, 2001 - REQUEST FOR CONSOLIDATION OF CIVIL CASE NO. R-1692 RTC BR. 45

  • A.M. No. 00-8-03-SB August 31, 2001 - RE: UNNUMBERED RESOLUTION OF THE SANDIGANBAYAN RE ACQUISITION OF THREE [3] MOTOR VEHICLES FOR OFFICIAL USE OF JUSTICES

  • A.M. No. P-99-1316 August 31, 2001 - KENNETH S. NEELAND v. ILDEFONSO M. VILLANUEVA

  • G.R. Nos. 132548-49 August 31, 2001 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ALEJO MIASCO

  • G.R. No. 141211 August 31, 2001 - CITY WARDEN OF THE MANILA CITY JAIL v. RAYMOND S. ESTRELLA, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365   August 9, 2001 - CESINA EBALLA v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    SECOND DIVISION

    [A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365. August 9, 2001.]

    CESINA EBALLA, Complainant, v. JUDGE ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, Branch Clerk of Court PEDRO C. DOCTOLERO, and Interpreter II EVELYN DEPALOBOS, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 44, Pasay City, Respondents.

    D E C I S I O N


    MENDOZA, J.:


    This is a complaint filed against Judge Estrellita M. Paas, Branch Clerk of Court Pedro C. Doctolero, and Interpreter II Evelyn Depalobos, all of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 44, Pasay City. Complainant is accused of trespass to dwelling and malicious mischief in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-1447 and 99-1448, now pending before the court of respondent judge.

    In her complaint, Eballa charges Judge Paas with ignorance of the law for having cited her in contempt and ordered her detention for three hours on June 1, 1999. Complainant also cites the failure of Judge Paas to issue a formal order in connection with complainant’s motion for reduction of bail and for a re-raffle of the cases.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Complainant charges respondents Pedro C. Doctolero and Evelyn Depalobos with discourtesy. She claims that on June 1, 1999, the date set for her arraignment, she saw Doctolero to inquire about the time of the hearing and asked if she could absent herself from the same as she had a motion for reinvestigation which still had to be resolved. According to complainant, Doctolero replied in a brusque manner, "Wala akong pakialam, basta bumalik ka mamaya." ("I don’t care if you have a pending motion, but you have to return later for the hearing.") Doctolero then allegedly told complainant that her motion for reduction of bail had been denied. Complainant said she was surprised to know this because she had not received any order from the court to that effect.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw library

    Complainant alleges that she requested Judge Paas for postponement of the hearing when her cases were called for arraignment because her counsel was absent and she had a motion for reinvestigation which had yet to be resolved. Disregarding complainant’s plea, Judge Paas allegedly directed Depalobos to read the informations over complainant’s objections. According to complainant, Depalobos read the informations in a very loud voice with the intent of humiliating her as it was heard by everyone in the courtroom. Depalobos then asked complainant if the charges were true, and the latter answered in the negative. Complainant said she refused to sign the certificate of arraignment even when she was told that a plea of not guilty would be entered in her behalf since she denied the charges against her. She said that the people in the courtroom laughed when she told Depalobos, "E, basa ka nang basa." ("You insisted on reading the charges.") For this reason, Judge Paas cited complainant for contempt and ordered her incarcerated. 1

    Respondent Judge Paas’ version is as follows: As complainant was not represented by a lawyer during her arraignment, Judge Paas appointed Atty. Reynaldo Ticyado of the Public Attorney’s Office complainant’s counsel de oficio. According to Judge Paas, complainant insisted that she had a pending motion for reinvestigation, but the records of the case did not show there was one filed. Thus, Judge Paas proceeded with the arraignment and directed Depalobos to read the informations to complainant. The latter then said in a loud voice, "Hindi! Hindi totoo iyan!" ("No! That’s not true!") Because of complainant’s answer, Judge Paas said she ordered a plea of not guilty to be entered in the record. When asked to sign the certificate of arraignment, however, complainant said again in a loud voice, "Hindi ako pipirma diyan!" ("I won’t sign that!") Complainant was also making faces in open court which caused embarrassment on the part of Judge Paas because those in the courtroom laughed. Public Prosecutor Bernabe Augustus Solis thus moved to cite complainant in contempt. Because of complainant’s disrespectful remarks and misbehavior in court, Judge Paas said she granted the prosecutor’s motion and ordered complainant to be detained for three hours. Judge Paas submitted an affidavit of Depalobos and the comment of Public Prosecutor Solis corroborating her allegations. 2

    On the other hand, Branch Clerk of Court Pedro C. Doctolero stated that in the morning of June 1, 1999, complainant came to court and asked if her arraignment and pre-trial in Criminal Case Nos. 99-1447 and 99-1448 would proceed as scheduled considering that she had posted her cash bond on May 4, 1999 and had filed a motion for reinvestigation. Doctolero said he told her, "Sandali lang po at kukunin ko ang records." ("If you would please excuse me, I will get the records.") Doctolero said that as he found no motion for reinvestigation filed in the case, he told complainant politely, "Tuloy po ang arraignment ninyo at bumalik kayo mamayang ala-una y media dahil kayo po ay personal na notified sa inyong arraignment." ("Your arraignment will proceed as scheduled and you have to return at 1:30 p.m. because you were personally notified thereof.") In fact, according to Doctolero, complainant thanked him and said she would come back.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw library

    Doctolero admitted that complainant did not receive a copy of the order denying her motion for reduction of bail bond. He claimed, however, that complainant was personally informed of the denial of her motion as noted on the upper hand corner of the motion. 3

    Doctolero annexed to his comment a certification that complainant had not filed any motion for reinvestigation before either Branch 44 or Branch 46 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay City, the supporting affidavits of Atty. Ticyado and court staff members Elizabeth Gomez-Reyes and Marites G. Baybay, and a copy of complainant’s motion for reduction of bond showing Judge Paas’ notation at the upper left hand corner, denying complainant’s motion.

    For her part, Depalobos confirmed that on June 1, 1999, at 1:30 p.m., complainant manifested before the court that she had filed a motion for reinvestigation although not in the court but with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. The court denied complainant’s request for postponement and ordered Depalobos to read the informations. According to Depalobos, complainant was considered to have entered a plea of not guilty as she denied the allegations against her, but she refused to sign the certificate of arraignment.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Depalobos explained that she only did what Judge Paas had told her to do, namely, read the charges to complainant without any intention to humiliate the latter. Depalobos said she read aloud the informations because complainant told her that she had difficulty hearing. Depalobos attached to her comment the corroborating affidavits of Bien Camba, the court stenographer on duty on June 1, 1999, and Atty. Ticyado. 4

    In its report, dated May 2, 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator finds the complaint to be without merit. In its opinion, complainant’s remedy is not to file an administrative case against Judge Paas but to seek judicial redress under the Rules of Court. It states that Judge Paas correctly proceeded with the arraignment of complainant considering that the latter did not file a motion for reinvestigation in court, but, as it turned out, in the Office of the City Prosecutor. Judge Paas wanted to avoid delay and could not be blamed for appointing a counsel de oficio for complainant when her counsel failed to appear at the arraignment.

    Contrary to complainant’s allegation, Judge Paas issued an order, dated July 16, 1999, denying her motion for re-raffle, a copy of which was received by complainant on August 4, 1999 per the registry return card.

    However, the OCA finds Judge Paas remiss in failing to issue an order denying complainant’s motion for reduction of bail, making only a marginal note of her action.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    With respect to the charges of discourtesy against respondents Doctolero and Depalobos, the OCA notes that complainant presented no evidence to sustain the charges. In contrast, respondents submitted evidence in support of their defense.

    In view of the foregoing, the OCA recommends that the charges of ignorance of the law against Judge Paas and of discourtesy against Doctolero and Depalobos be dismissed for lack of merit. However, it recommends that Judge Paas be reprimanded for failure to comply with the formal requirements of the Rules of Court respecting the issuance of a formal written order on the motions filed before her sala.

    We find the recommendations of the OCA to be well taken.

    First. As shown by the records of this case, complainant filed her motion for reinvestigation not with respondents’ court but with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City on May 6, 1999. At that time, the MeTC of Pasay City already had acquired jurisdiction over the cases considering the informations for trespass to dwelling and malicious mischief had earlier been filed on April 8, 1999. The rule is settled that upon the filing of a complaint or information in court, jurisdiction over the case is already vested with the trial court and the disposition of the case rests upon its sound discretion. 5 Accordingly, complainant should have filed her motion for reinvestigation with the court rather than with the city prosecutor’s office. 6 Judge Paas cannot be faulted for proceeding with complainant’s arraignment.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Second. Complainant cannot claim violation of her right to have counsel of her own choice. Her counsel failed to appear despite due notice to her, and, therefore, respondent Judge was justified in appointing a counsel de oficio to assist her during her arraignment.

    Third. Nor can Judge Paas be administratively held liable for citing complainant in contempt and ordering her detention. Complainant refused to sign the certificate of arraignment and declared her refusal to do so in a loud voice while at the same time making faces, to the great embarrassment of the court. At any rate, if she thought she had been cited in contempt without cause, her remedy was to file a petition for certiorari in accordance with Rule 71, 2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Remedy therefrom. — The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of the petition, provided such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Fourth. Nor is there any basis for sustaining complainant’s allegations of discourtesy against respondents Doctolero and Depalobos. Complainant presented no evidence to support her allegations. On the other hand, Doctolero and Depalobos attached affidavits corroborating their respective defenses. Moreover, complainant did not deny Depalobos’ claim that the latter had to read the informations aloud because complainant said she was hard of hearing.

    Fifth. With respect to complainant’s claim that Judge Paas failed to issue the necessary orders disposing of her motions for reduction of bail and for the re-raffle of the case, it was shown that the motion for re-raffle was denied in an order dated July 16, 1999 and complainant received a copy of the order on August 4, 1999.

    However, the record shows that Judge Paas did not actually issue a formal order disposing of the motion for reduction of bail, but only noted her action denying the motion on the margin thereof. Respondent judge’s order should at least have been quoted in a notice signed by the clerk of court and a copy of the notice should have been served on complainant. As it is, complainant learned of the denial of her motion when she went to the court to inquire about the status of her cases.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The practice of some lower court judges of merely noting their orders either granting or denying motions on the margin of the motions is inconsistent with the purpose of R.A. No. 6031, effective August 4, 1969, to make inferior courts also courts of record. The proceeding of said courts should now be recorded in a formal manner. There is all the more reason for insisting on this requirements in the case at bar because respondent judge was resolving a motion for reduction of bail, which is a fundamental right of the accused in criminal cases. Respondent judge should explain the reason for the denial of complainant’s motion, instead of simply noting her action on the margin of such motion.

    WHEREFORE, the complaint of Cesinia Eballa for ignorance of the law against Judge Estrellita M. Paas and for discourtesy against Branch Clerk of Court Pedro C. Doctolero and Interpreter II Evelyn Depalobos, of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 44, Pasay City, is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, Judge Paas is hereby REPRIMANDED for inefficiency in failing to issue a formal written order denying complainant’s motion for reduction of bail.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo, Quisumbing, Buena and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 1-3.

    2. Id., pp. 26-31.

    3. Id., pp. 44-46.

    4. Id., pp. 55-59.

    5. Pilapil v. Garchitorena, 299 SCRA 343 (1998).

    6. Rule 15, 9 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.

    A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365   August 9, 2001 - CESINA EBALLA v. ESTRELLITA M. PAAS, ET AL.


    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED