Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 2011 > June 2011 Decisions > [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2246 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3219-RTJ) : June 01, 2011] ATTY. RANDY P. BARENG, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ZENAIDA R. DAGUNA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 19, MANILA, RESPONDENT. :

Before us is the Complaint-Affidavit ^[1] filed by Atty. Randy P. Bareng, on July 8, 2009, against Presiding Judge Zenaida Daguna of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 19, Manila. Atty. Bareng accused Judge Daguna of gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions of her office.

The Antecedents

Atty. Bareng is the counsel of Romulo Awingan, one of the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 05-237561 and 05-237562, for double murder, entitled “People of the Philippines v. Licerio Antiporda, Jr., Lloyd Antiporda, Romulo Awingan and Richard Mecate.” These two murder cases were consolidated before the RTC, Manila, Branch 29 presided by Judge Cielito M. Grulla. ^[2] On October 26, 2005, Judge Grulla issued an Order ^[3] granting the public prosecutor’s motion to withdraw the informations filed based on the findings of the Secretary of Justice. ^[4]

The private complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration, Inhibition and Transfer Cases to Regular Court.  Judge Grulla voluntarily inhibited herself from the case, and did not resolve the motion for reconsideration and the motion to transfer the cases.  The consolidated cases were subsequently re-raffled to the RTC, Manila, Branch 19, presided by Judge Daguna.

In her December 9, 2005 Resolution, ^[5] Judge Daguna granted the private complainant’s motion for reconsideration and set aside Judge Grulla’s October 26, 2005 Order. Accused Awingan, through Atty. Bareng,  filed a motion for reconsideration. Judge Daguna denied the motion in her Order of February 3, 2006. ^[6] Awingan, thereafter, filed a petition for certiorari and prohibition before the Court of Appeals (CA), alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of Judge Daguna.

During the pendency of the CA petition, Judge Daguna issued warrants of arrest against all the accused.

The CA granted Awingan’s petition for certiorari and prohibition in its November 10, 2006 Decision. ^[7] The CA found that Judge Daguna acted with grave abuse of discretion because she “arbitrarily and whimsically disregarded the guidelines for acting on the People’s motion to withdraw informations and practiced unreasonable and inexplicable selectivity by not considering all the records available to her in order to make her independent assessment and evaluation of the merits of the cases before her.” ^[8] The CA nullified her two resolutions, ordered her to grant the motion to withdraw the informations filed, and prohibited her from further proceeding with Criminal Case Nos. 05-237561-62.

Since the warrants of arrest against all the accused were still in force, Atty. Bareng filed before the RTC a Manifestation and Motion, on November 15, 2006, ^[9] to inform the RTC of the CA Decision and to ask for its immediate implementation. He attached a certified copy of the CA Decision.

Judge Daguna denied the motion for lack of merit in her December 4, 2006 Order. ^[10]  She pointed out that the Rules of Court provides that only final and executory judgments may be executed.  She noted that the required entry of judgment, to show that the decision was executory, was not submitted with the motion, and that the record of the case showed that the private complainant filed a motion for reconsideration before the CA. Judge Daguna also ordered Atty. Bareng “to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from receipt why he should not be held in contempt of court or otherwise dealt with administratively for deliberately attempting to mislead the Court.” ^[11]

Atty. Bareng moved for the reconsideration of the Order, ^[12] but Judge Daguna turned the motion down in her Order of January 3, 2007. ^[13]  She found Atty. Bareng guilty of contempt of court and penalized him with a fine of P1,000.00, and warned him against the repetition of the same offense.

Atty. Bareng moved for the reconsideration of this Order ^[14] and subsequently filed a supplement to this motion on March 5, 2007. ^[15]  When the RTC failed to immediately resolve the motion, Atty. Bareng filed his first motion to resolve, dated January 2, 2008. ^[16] On February 4, 2008, he filed his manifestation and second motion to resolve. ^[17]

In the Order ^[18] issued, Judge Daguna stated that she resolved Atty. Bareng’s motion for reconsideration on July 31, 2007, but her Order might not have been released; hence, she directed that the Order be reprinted and the parties be furnished with copies.  Since Judge Daguna denied his motion for reconsideration for lack of merit, ^[19]  Atty. Bareng filed his notice of appeal ^[20] on May 20, 2008, after receiving his copy of the order on May 6, 2008. ^[21]

On July 8, 2009, Atty. Bareng filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) his complaint-affidavit, ^[22] charging Judge Daguna with gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions of her office, based on the following allegations:

1. That Judge Daguna, in her December 4, 2006 Order, insinuated that there was “pecuniary estimation” attached to the manifestation and motion filed by Atty. Bareng; this, according to Atty. Bareng, was unfair and tainted with malice;

2. That despite Atty. Bareng’s explanation, Judge Daguna found him guilty of contempt of court;

3. That he filed a motion for reconsideration and supplement to the motion for reconsideration;

4. That after the lapse of almost one year, he filed his first motion to resolve;

5. That after more than one month, he filed a manifestation and second motion to resolve;

6. That Judge Daguna claimed that she had resolved the motion for reconsideration as early as July 31, 2007 but apparently the order had not been released; and

7. That he filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2008 but Judge Daguna had not acted on the appeal despite his motion to resolve and/or elevate appeal dated June 19, 2009.

In her July 31, 2009 Comment, ^[23]  Judge Daguna denied that the delays attributed to her were her fault.  She blamed her staff for the delay.  Thus:

7. As regards paragraph 19 to 22, it was a good thing that the good lawyer, herein complainant, filed a “Motion To Resolve” thereby getting the attention of the Court on the purely inadvertent failure on the part of the court staff  to mail the Order dated July 31, 2007.  At any rate, the same has been settled by reprinting the same and had it released by mail to the parties.  The situation in the office then has to be taken into consideration as a backgrounder of the inadvertence, with this office being understaffed as the Clerk in-charge of the criminal cases had gone AWOL, and the Process Server, who pitches in during the absence of the clerks for the typing of notices and mailing was detailed to the Office of the Clerk of Court.  So it was one of the court stenographers who assumed the clerical duties of typing the notices and mailing during his free time as stenographer. The Order dated July 31, 2007 (Annex “6”) was duly attached to the record but the staff could not explain why the copies thereof and the notices were missing for which reason the Court hastily issued the Order dated March 14, 2008 (Annex “7”) after investigating the staff over the lapse averted to. Meanwhile, the respondent had started to be ailing and was slowed down by her ailment but it was never a lapse committed by the respondent but admittedly a lapse on the part of the court staff[.]

She also explained the delay in forwarding the records to the CA, as follows:

8. The “Notice of Appeal” interposed by Atty. Randy P. Bareng to the Order of this Court convicting him for contempt of Court and subjecting him to a fine of P1,000.00 has been duly acted upon by the Court by readily issuing an Order dated May 21, 2008 (Annex “8”) giving due course thereto with a directive addressed to the staff to forward the documents appurtenant to the contempt proceedings.  However[,] to her great dismay, she learned of this another lapse committed by the staff after she received a copy of this administrative complaint that the said Order has not been released on time and has not even been mailed to the parties.  Worse, it appears from the record that the appurtenant documents were only forwarded to the Court of Appeals on June 23, 2009 as shown in the Transmittal Letter (Annex “9”) after the herein complainant filed a “Motion To Resolve And /Or Elevate Appeal”. The Branch Clerk explained that it was pure oversight on his part considering that everything seemed regular on the record as the proceedings in these cases are suspended due to the incidents pending for resolution in the appellate courts.  But he failed to remember that there was an order that was to be complied with relative to the contempt proceedings particularly the transmittal of the documents on appeal.  He honestly thought it has already been taken care of.  The Clerk in-charge for criminal cases in turn said that he did not bother to have the Order (dated May 21, 2008) mailed to the parties as he thought that there was no need for it since the directive of the Court was only to forward the appurtenant record/documents to the Court of  Appeals.  Yet he failed to forward the same on time as the thought was sidelined by other equally important duties he had to attend to and admitted that his attention was called upon receipt of the “Motion To Resolve and/or Elevate Appeal.  This Clerk in-charge of criminal cases is a new employee and understandably has failed to grasp the extent of his duties as such;
   
   
9. The Branch Clerk did not bother to inform me of the “Motion to Resolve and/or Elevate Appeal” filed by Atty. Bareng allegedly to spare me of the anxieties that the matter would cause in deference to my present health condition, as it inevitably has now caused my blood pressure to shoot up.

While the administrative case was pending, Judge Daguna applied for disability retirement in late 2009.  She was allowed to retire, but because of the two (2) pending administrative cases against her, the amount of P50,000.00 was withheld from her retirement benefits to answer for whatever adverse decision the Court may later impose on her.


The OCA’s Report/Recommendation

In its submission dated February 24, 2010, ^[24] the OCA found no evidence to sustain the charges of gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions of her office against Judge Daguna.  The OCA, however, found Judge Daguna guilty of gross inefficiency.  The OCA’s report stated:

The inefficiency of the respondent Judge is apparent in the following instances: (1) She acknowledged the fact that she had first known of the filing of the Motion to Resolve from the complainant himself which also led to her knowledge of the failure to mail her 31 July 2007 Order; (2) She likewise learned first hand, when she received a copy of the present administrative complaint, that her 21 May 2008 Order giving due course to the complainant’s Notice of Appeal was not released on time; (3) She attempted to escape responsibility as regards the failure of the court staff in mailing the said twin Orders by stating that they were resolved on time.  It is not likewise clear why the respondent Judge did not pay much attention to the desist order of the appellate court.

It must be noted that the respondent rendered the 31 July 2007 Order beyond the 90-day reglementary period reckoned from the complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration dated 31 January 2007.  Granting arguendo that the said Order was indeed issued, the same was issued with more than 3 months of delay or a period of 6 months from the filing of the complainant’s last pleading which is a flagrant violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics and Section 15 (1) and (2), Article VII of the Constitution. xxx

Lastly, judges are not allowed to use their staff as shields to evade responsibility for mistakes and mishaps in the course of the performance of their duties (Hilario v Concepcion, 327 SCRA 96).  He should be the master of his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes of his subjects (Pantaleon v Guadiz, Jr., 323 SCRA 147).  Judges are bound to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to decide cases within the required period (Dela Cruz v Bersamira, 336 SCRA 253).  Delay in the disposition of even one (1) case constitutes gross inefficiency which the Supreme Court will not tolerate.

The OCA recommended that the case be redocketed as a regular administrative matter and that Judge Daguna be fined P10,000.00, deductible from the P50,000.00 withheld from her retirement benefits.

The Court’s Ruling

We agree with the OCA’s finding that Judge Daguna is liable for gross inefficiency for failing to adopt a system of record management in her court. Judge Daguna violated Rule 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct that provides:

Rule 3.08 – A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions or other judges and court personnel.

Rule 3.09 – A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.

On July 31, 2007, ^[25] Judge Daguna also resolved Atty. Bareng’s motion for reconsideration which was filed on January 31, 2007, or way beyond the required period.  There was also a delay in sending the records of the appealed case to the CA. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that “A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.”

Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides:

SECTION 9. Less Serious Charges. — Less serious charges include:

1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;

xxx

SECTION 11. Sanctions. —

xxx

B.  If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:

1.   Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or

2.  A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

In addition to gross inefficiency, we find Judge Daguna guilty of delay in rendering an order, as well as delay in transmitting the records of a case.  Based on Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the penalty for a less serious charge is either suspension or a fine. Considering Judge Daguna’s retirement, we consider a total fine of P15,000.00 to be the appropriate penalty. This fine shall be deducted from the P50,000.00 withheld from her retirement benefits.

WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Zenaida R. Daguna, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Manila, is hereby declared GUILTY of gross inefficiency, and of undue delay in rendering an order and in transmitting the records of a case.  She is hereby FINED Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00), to be deducted from the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) withheld from her retirement benefits.

SO ORDERED.

Carpio Morales, (Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr., and Sereno, JJ., concur.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 1-7.

^[2] Id. at 103.

^[3] Id. at 16.

^[4] Id. at 15.

^[5] Id. at 103.

^[6] Ibid.

^[7] Id. at 8-36; Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa.

^[8] Id. at 33.

^[9] Id. at 37-41.

^[10] Id. at 42-44.

^[11] Id. at 44.

^[12] Id. at 45-52.

^[13] Id. at 53-56.

^[14] Id. at 57-64.

^[15] Id. at 65-67.

^[16] Id. at 68-69.

^[17] Id. at 70-72.

^[18] Id. at 100; dated March 14, 2008.

^[19] Rollo, p. 97.

^[20] Id. at 98.

^[21] Ibid.

^[22] Supra note 1.

^[23] Rollo, pp. 78-81.

^[24] Id. at 103-109.

^[25] Id. at 105.