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
 

   
April-2004 Jurisprudence                 

  • Boy v. CA: 125088 : April 14, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Buntag : 123070 : April 14, 2004 : J. Callejo, Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Culaba v. CA: 125862 : April 15, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Ramos : 125898 : April 14, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • Quizon v. CA: 127819 : April 27, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • The Insular Life Assurance Co Ltd v. CA: 126850 : April 28, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • Venzon v. Spa Santos : 128308 : April 24, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • Nunez v. People : 127962 : April 14, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Ayuman : 133436 : April 14, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : En Banc : Decision

  • People v. Kimura : 130805 : April 25, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Ramos : 135204 : April 14, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • People v. Quimzon : 133541 : April 14, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Rom : 137585 : April 28, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Ambrosio : 135378 : April 14, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • [G.R. NO. 140385. April 14, 2004]PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES, Appellee, v. MARIO MARCELO y DELA CRUZ,appellant.

  • Texon Mnfg v. Millena : 141380 : April 14, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : Third Division : Decision

  • Philips Semiconductors (Phils) Inc v. Fadriquela : 141717 : April 14, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Balag-ey : 141532 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Ayangao : 142356 : April 14, 2004 : J. Corona : Third Division : Decision

  • Villanueva v. CA: 143286 : April 14, 2004 : J. Carpio : First Division : Decision

  • Oderon Vda de Cardona v. Amansec : 147216 : April 15, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Resolution

  • Phil Employ Services & Resources Inc v. Paramio : 144786 : April 15, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Litonjua v. Fernandez : 148116 : April 14, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Phil Rabbit Bus Line Inc v. People : 147703 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • Emco Plywood Corp v. Abelgas : 148532 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Saldaa : 148518 : April 15, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Decision

  • Imperial v. Jaucian : 149004 : April 14, 2004 : J. Pangaban : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Ibaez : 148627 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision

  • Sps Chan v. RTC of Zamboanga : 149253 : April 15, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • People v. Dacillo : 149368 : April 28, 2004 : J. Corona : En Banc : Decision

  • Teope v. People : 149687 : April 14, 2004 : J. Azcuna : First Division : Decision

  • Sidro v. People : 149685 : April 28, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Sia v. People : 149695 : April 28, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • BPI v. ALs Mgmt Dev't Corp : 151821 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • Sevilla Trading Co v. Semana : 152456 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision

  • Batangas Power Corp v. Batangas City : 152675 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision

  • Mondragon Leisure and Resorts Corp v. United Coconut pLanters Bank : 154187 : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Reyes : 153119 : April 13, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : En Banc : Decision

  • Agilent Technologies Singapore Ltd v. Integrated Silicon Tech Phils Corp : 154618 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • People v. Odilao Jr : 155451 : April 14, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Decision

  • Vallejo v. CA: 156413 : April 14, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Capital Credit Dimension Inc. v. Chua : 157213 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Decision

  • Kare v. Comelec : 157526 : April 28, 2004 : J. Panganiban : En Banc : Decision

  • People v. Alcantara : 157669 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Aradais v. Comelec : 157863 : April 28, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : En Banc : Resolution

  • Premiere Dev't Bank v. CA: 159352 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Honansan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ : 159747 : April 13, 2004 : J. Sandoval-Gutierrez : En Banc : Dissenting Opinion

  • Velarde v. Social Justice Society : 159357 : April 28, 2004 : J. Panganiban : En Banc : Decision

  • Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ : 159747 : April 13, 2004 : J. Vitug : En Banc : Separate Opinion

  • Honasan II v. Panel of Investigating Prosecutors of the DOJ : 159747 : April 13, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : En Banc : Dissenting Opinion

  • Idulza v. Comelec : 160130 : April 14, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution

  • Estrella v. Comelec : 160465 : April 28, 2004 : J. Carpio-Morales : En Banc : Resolution

  • Repol v. Comelec : 161418 : April 28, 2004 : J. Carpio : En Banc : Decision

  • Aklat-Asosasyon para sa kaunlaran ng Lipunan at Adhikain para sa Tao, Inc v. Comelec : 162203 : April 14, 2004 : J. Tinga : En Banc : Resolution

  • Ting-Dumali v. Torres : AC 5161 : Arpil 14, 2004 : Per Curiam : En Banc : Resolution

  • Sitaca v. Palomares : AC 5285 : April 14, 2004 : J. Vitug : Third Division : Decision

  • Fajardo v. Dela Torre : AC 6295 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Resolution

  • Paredes v. Padua : AM CA-91-3-P : April 14, 2004 : J. Panganiban : En Banc : Resolution

  • Navarro v. Tormis : AM MTJ-00-1337 : April 27, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Alcaraz v. Lindo : AM MTJ-04-1539 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

  • Muyco v. Saratan : AM P-03-1761 : April 2, 2004 : J. Quisumbing : Second Division : Resolution

  • Gonzales v. Familara III : AM P-04-1794 : April 14, 2004 : J. Austria-Martinez : Second Division : Resolution

  • Mendoza v. Buo-RIvera : AM P-04-1784 : April 28, 2004 : J. Puno : Second Division : Resolution

  • Reyes Jr v. Cristi : AM P-04-1801 : April 2, 2004 : J. Callejo Sr : Second Division : Decision

  • Decena v. Malanyaon : Am RTJ-02-1669 : April 14, 2004 : J. Tinga : Second Division : Resolution

  •  





     
     

    Alcaraz v. Lindo : AM MTJ-04-1539 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago
: First Division : Decision

      Alcaraz v. Lindo : AM MTJ-04-1539 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago : First Division : Decision

    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [A.M. NO. MTJ-04-1539. April 14, 2004]

    ELENA R. ALCARAZ, Complainant, v. JUDGE FRANCISCO S. LINDO, Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 55, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N

    YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

    Judges are the visible representations of law and justice. They ought to be embodiments of competence, integrity and independence. In particular, judges are frontline officers in the administration of justice. It is therefore essential that they live up to the high standards demanded by the Code of Judicial Conduct. To be able to render substantial justice and to maintain public confidence in the legal system, they are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules. Judicial competence requires no less.1 cralawred

    Complainant Elena Alcaraz was one of the defendants in Civil Case No. 1782-98, an action for sum of money entitled, Maria Aurora C. Santos, Plaintiff v. Rufina Eligio, Elena Alcaraz & her husband, Raustino C. Alcaraz, and Conchita Ocampo & her husband, Rodolfo Ocampo, Defendants. The case was filed on January 9, 1998 before the Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon and raffled to Branch 55, presided by respondent Judge Francisco S. Lindo. Plaintiff therein, Atty. Ma. Aurora C. Santos, sought the collection of the unpaid obligation of defendants under the promissory note they executed in her favor.2 cralawred

    Defendant Eligio filed a motion to dismiss the complaint,3 which was denied by respondent judge in an Order dated February 13, 1998.4 cralawred

    On June 5, 1998, respondent judge, acting on an Omnibus Motion filed by plaintiff,5 issued an Order declaring the Alcaraz spouses and the Ocampo spouses in default for failure to file their respective answers.6 Subsequently, defendant Eligio was likewise declared in default for failure to file answer. Accordingly, plaintiff Santos was allowed to present her evidence ex-parte.7 cralawred

    On October 15, 1998, judgment by default was rendered against defendants, ordering them, jointly and severally, to pay the unpaid obligation under the promissory note with interest and penalty thereon, attorneys fees and liquidated damages.8 cralawred

    On February 19, 1999, defendant Elena Alcaraz filed a Motion for Annulment of Decision.9 The Motion was denied by respondent judge in an Order dated June 22, 1999.10 cralawred

    Hence, on July 22, 1999, Elena Alcaraz instituted the instant petition for disbarment against respondent judge.She alleged that she was not furnished a copy of the Order dated June 5, 1998 declaring her and the other defendants in default, or of the Order declaring the other defendant, Rufina Eligio, in default; that respondent judge, in rendering the judgment by default, did not diligently ascertain the facts; and that respondent judge committed abuse of discretion when he denied complainants Motion for Annulment of Decision on the basis only of the arguments in the opposition filed by plaintiff Santos.

    When required to comment, respondent judge alleged that complainants Motion for Annulment of Decision was not properly verified and was not accompanied by an affidavit showing fraud, accident, mistake and excusable negligence; that notwithstanding these defects, he took cognizance of the Motion, set it for hearing and resolved the same; that he denied the Motion because the allegations therein were false. He reminded complainant that she still had three days to appeal the decision, but no appeal was filed. He further averred that his judgment was rendered based on substantial evidence and the monetary awards therein were in accordance with the contracts between the parties.11 cralawred

    In her Reply,12 complainant asserted that she was not furnished copies of the following pleadings and court orders:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    (a) The Motion to Dismiss filed by defendant Eligio;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    (b) The Order denying the said motion;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    (c) The Omnibus Motion of the plaintiff praying that the defendants (except Rufina Eligio) be declared in default:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    (d) The Order declaring four of the defendants, including the complainant, in default;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    (e) The Motion to declare Eligio in default;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    (f) The documentary exhibits of the plaintiff consisting of the promissory notes, summary of payments and the demand letter;chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

    (g) The withdrawal of the appearance of Atty. Mario M. Villegas as counsel for the defendants:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    (h) The Order granting the said withdrawal and directing the defendants to hire the services of a new counsel; andcralawlibrary

    (i) The Motion to Admit Opposition with the Opposition attached filed by the plaintiff to oppose the Motion for Annulment of Decision.

    The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. On March 28, 2000, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo recommended that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P3,000.00 for failure to comply with Rule 9, Sections 3 (a) and 3(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, with a warning that the repetition of the same offense shall merit a stiffer penalty.13 cralawred

    We agree with the recommendation that respondent judge be fined except as to the amount of fine to be imposed. For failure to comply with Rule 9, Sections 3 (a) and 3(b) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, respondent judge should be fined in the amount of P5,000.00.

    Rule 9, Section 3 (a) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    (a) Effect of order of default. A party in default shall be entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings but shall not take part in the trial.

    It is evident from the foregoing rule that even when a defendant is already declared in default, he is entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings.14 Complainants assertion that she was not furnished, not only with the order of default, but the subsequent orders of the respondent judge in Civil Case No. 1782-98, and the respondents failure to controvert this allegations, leaves us with no other conclusion other than that respondent judge was remiss in his duty to observe the Rules.

    In his Comment, respondent judge merely averred that complainant was served summons, that she filed her answer, that the plaintiff filed a motion to declare them in default, and that he issued the order declaring four of the defendants in default on June 5, 1998. He said nothing about furnishing complainant with copies of the order of default and of the subsequent orders. Silence is admission if there was a chance to deny, especially if it constitutes one of the principal charges against the respondent.15 cralawred

    Respondents failure to comply with the elementary dictates of procedural rules constitutes a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The Code is explicit in its mandate that:chanroblesvirtua1awlibrary

    A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.16 cralawred

    Competence is the mark of a good judge.Having accepted the exalted position of a judge, whereby he judges his own fellowmen, the judge owes it to the public who depend on him, and to the dignity of the court he sits in, to be proficient in the law.17 cralawred

    Anent the correctness of respondent Judges decision and denial of complainants Motion for Annulment of Decision, being essentially judicial in character, the proper action that complainant should have taken was an appeal to the Regional Trial Court. An administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available.18 cralawred

    We reiterate that judges are duty bound to be faithful to the law and to maintain professional competence at all times.Their role in the administration of justice requires a continuous study of the law, lest public confidence in the judiciary be eroded by incompetence and irresponsible conduct.19 cralawred

    WHEREFORE, Respondent Judge Francisco S. Lindo is found to have violated Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and is FINED FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), and is warned that a repetition of this or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Panganiban, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    2 Rollo, pp. 50-56.
    3 Id., p. 59.
    4 Id., p. 60.
    5 Id., pp. 61-65.
    6 Id., p. 66.
    7 Id., p. 71.
    8 Id., pp. 79-81.
    9 Id., pp. 91-94.
    10 Id., p. 121.
    11 Id., pp. 45-49.
    12 Id., pp. 157-162.
    13 Id., pp. 365-368.
    14 Gubat, The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure Annotated, 2000 edition, p. 136.
    15 Perez v. Suller, A.M. No. MTJ-94-936, 6 November 1995, 249 SCRA 665.
    16 Rule 3.01, Code of Judicial Conduct.
    17 Pineda, Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1994 edition, p. 349, citing Malcolm, Legal and Judicial Ethics.
    18 Santos v. Orlino, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1418, 25 September 1998, 296 SCRA 101.

    Alcaraz v. Lindo : AM MTJ-04-1539 : April 14, 2004 : J. Ynares-Santiago
: First Division : Decision


    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