November 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > November 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2918-RTJ : November 24, 2008] SPOUSES POLICARPIO AND ALICIA CARADA V. PRESIDING JUDGE AIDA ESTRELLA MACAPAGAL, RTC, BR. 195, PARAÑAQUE :
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2918-RTJ : November 24, 2008]
SPOUSES POLICARPIO AND ALICIA CARADA V. PRESIDING JUDGE AIDA ESTRELLA MACAPAGAL, RTC, BR. 195, PARAÑAQUE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 24 November 2008:
A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2918-RTJ (Spouses Policarpio and Alicia Carada v. Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal, RTC, Br. 195, Para�aque).- This concerns the Complaint dated 21 May 2008 filed by the Spouses Policarpio and Alicia Carada against Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Para�aque City, Br. 195, for knowingly rendering an unjust decision/order^ neglect of duties and gross ignorance of the law relative to Civil Case No. 99-0197 9 entitled Dionisio A. Alincastre, Jr., et al. v. Spouses Policarpio and Alicia Carada, et al. and Spouses Policarpio and Alicia Carada, et al (Third Party Plaintiffs) v. Sonia de Jesus (Third Party Defendant) for Annulment of Title and Reconveyance.
The factual allegations in the complaint are summarized in the Report dated 2 October 2008 of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) as follows:
In her Comment dated 24 June 2008, respondent judge denies all the charges in the complaint, averring that the same are totally baseless, malicious and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The OCA Report summarizes her assertions:
Complainants filed a Reply dated 10 July 2008 reiterating their allegations in the complaint. The OCA Report sums up some of the points that were raised in the Reply:
Respondent filed a Rejoinder dated 19 July 2008 reiterating her defenses in the Comment.
The OCA noted that per verification with the Special Cases Section of the Court of Appeals, CA G.R. SP No. 101180, entitled Sps. Policarpio and Alicia Carada v. Hon. Aida Estrella Macapagal, Presiding Judge, Br. 195. RTC; Paranaque city, et al. is still pending. The Special Cases Section is still awaiting the order from the Presiding Justice for the re-raffle of the case in view of the retirement of the former ponente of the case. On the other hand, according to the Civil Section of the Court of Appeals, complainants' appeal is docketed as CA G.R. No. 90832 and has just been re-raffled and is still pending.
The OCA made the following evaluation and recommendation:
Finding the OCA's evaluation to be well-founded and reasonable, the Court hereby adopts and approves its findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation in the aforequoted Report and Recommendation. The reason for the rule requiring prompt transmittal of records in appealed cases is to ensure the speedy disposition of the case. Respondent judge's failure to monitor the performance of her clerk of court had resulted in a delay in the administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Para�aque City, Br. 195 liable for delay in the transmittal of the case records of Civil Case No. 99-0197 to the Court of Appeals and is accordingly ADMONISHED and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. The charges of knowingly rendering an unjust decision/order and gross ignorance of the law against her are DISMISSED.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2918-RTJ (Spouses Policarpio and Alicia Carada v. Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal, RTC, Br. 195, Para�aque).- This concerns the Complaint dated 21 May 2008 filed by the Spouses Policarpio and Alicia Carada against Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Para�aque City, Br. 195, for knowingly rendering an unjust decision/order^ neglect of duties and gross ignorance of the law relative to Civil Case No. 99-0197 9 entitled Dionisio A. Alincastre, Jr., et al. v. Spouses Policarpio and Alicia Carada, et al. and Spouses Policarpio and Alicia Carada, et al (Third Party Plaintiffs) v. Sonia de Jesus (Third Party Defendant) for Annulment of Title and Reconveyance.
The factual allegations in the complaint are summarized in the Report dated 2 October 2008 of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) as follows:
Complainants allege that the 18 March 2005 Decision penned by respondent Judge in the above cited consolidated cases was unjust as it failed to take into account the parties' stipulation of facts that herein complainants were purchasers-in-good faith and that there was [a] principal-agent relationship between plaintiffs and defendant Sonia de Jesus, although the parties' stipulations were already quoted in the decision. Also, because the case of Cruz v. Bancon Finance Corporation (379 SCRA 490) cited and applied by respondent in the decision is not applicable, for unlike the sale transaction in the cited case, the subject sale transaction was not simulated. Because of this ignorance and the abovecited oversight, the decision erroneously ordered herein complainants to reconvey the subject property to the plaintiffs with all the earnings they derived therefrom.
Complainants, through their counsel, filed a motion for reconsideration and/or new trial on 19 April 2005, which was granted by respondent in the Order dated 28 July 2005 The order stated that the rest of the decision dated 18 March 2005 stays. That statement, according to complainant, is null and void as it is contrary to Section 6, Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides chat when a new trial is granted, the original judgment or final order shall be vacated and the action shall stand for trial de novo. Complainants maintain that [a] partial new-trial is not allowed under the circumstances of the subject case because the original complaint and the third party complaint are not severable since the third party defendant Sonia dc Jesus is also one of the defendants in the amended complaint (in the original case).
Subsequently, a new decision was rendered by respondent but complainants claim that the same was also not in accord with the law and jurisprudence. The new decision likewise failed to take into consideration the parties' stipulation of facts.
On 19 June 2006, complainants filed a notice of appeal which was initially dismissed by the court for failure to pay the corresponding appeal fee. It was eventually granted in the Order dated 5 September 2006.
A petition for relief from judgment/order was also filed by-complainant's new counsel, but was denied in respondent's Order dated 18 July 2007. Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration which was similarly denied in the Order dated 9 October 2007.
After these incidents, complainant's counsel reminded the branch clerk of court sometime in October 2007 to elevate the case records to the Court of Appeals in view of their appeal, and so that they may be able to request its consolidation with the petition for certiorari (under Rule 65) which they filed on 31 October 2007. However, no action was taken by the branch clerk of court. Their counsel's secretary called the branch clerk of court to follow-up the transfer of the case records. The latter informed the former that the records could not be elevated since it was a certiorari case that was filed. Complainants point out that the branch clerk of court's reply only shows that respondent judge and her branch clerk of court are not reading the case records.
Complainants' counsel thus filed an urgent ex pane motion to elevate records to the Court of Appeals dated 10 December 2007. This prompted respondent judge to issue the Order dated 11 December 2007. directing the branch clerk of court to explain complainants' allegation that she allegedly said that the case records could not be elevated to the Court of Appeals. In compliance to [sic] respondent's order, the branch clerk of court filed an explanation on the same day. The explanation was, however, inaccurate but was accepted by respondent in the Order dated 27 December 2007. To clarify the issue once and for all and to move the court to act on the matter, complainants filed a manifestation/motion on 9 January 2008, again praying for the elevation of the case records to the Court of Appeals.
It was only on 17 March 2008 when the records of the appealed case was finally elevated to the Court of Appeals.
Complainants lament that they were prejudiced not only by the unjust decisions of the respondent judge but also by her neglect of duty in failing to promptly elevate the records of the appealed case to the Court of Appeals. They were further inconvenienced by the anxiety brought by the order of respondent judge granting the motion for writ of execution filed by the plaintiffs. It was just fortunate that the Court of Appeals issued [a] Resolution dated 12 March 2008 in the certiorari case, advising the respondents therein, among who is herein respondent judge, to observe judicial courtesy by not insisting through hasty means on the implementation and enforcement of the questioned orders of the respondent judge dated 18 July 2007 and 9 October 2007.
Complainants are both more than 80 years of age and they fear that they may no longer witness the final decision on their case because of this delay.
In her Comment dated 24 June 2008, respondent judge denies all the charges in the complaint, averring that the same are totally baseless, malicious and unsubstantiated by clear and convincing evidence. The OCA Report summarizes her assertions:
As to the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust decision/order, respondent asseverates that the challenged decision is far from being unjust for the reasons that the decision was based on the amended joint stipulation of facts; and it contained the applicable law (law on possessors in good faith) and existing jurisprudence.
Granting for the sake of argument that the subject decision is unjust, as perceived by complainants, they nevertheless failed to cite any act of the respondent that would indicate that she rendered the decision in question knowing it to be unjust. Moreover, such error pertains to the exercise of her adjudicative functions and may be considered as a mere error of judgment.
Considering that complainants have filed an appeal and a petition for certiorari before the Court of Appeals which are not yet resolved with finality, they have no basis yet, at this point in time, to conclude that respondent is administratively liable.
The charge of gross ignorance of the law for allegedly citing jurisprudence not applicable to their case is likewise untenable. To constitute gross ignorance of the law, the act complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but also motivated by bad faith, fraud, malice or dishonesty. (GSIS v, Hon. Vicente A. Pacquing, et al, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1831, 2 February 2007) While complainants claim that the jurisprudence cited by respondent in the challenged decision is not applicable therein, they however, failed to cite the jurisprudence that they believe would be applicable to their case. This shows that they could not find one that would substantiate their allegation. Neither were they able to present even an iota of evidence that respondent was motivated by bad faith, fraud, malice or dishonesty in rendering the questioned decision.
The charge of neglect of duty in elevating the records of the subject case promptly as required by the Rules is likewise devoid of merit. Respondent claims that they encountered difficulties in transmitting the records of the appealed cases, including the subject case, because the copier unit issued to their branch broke down since the first quarter of 2007. They even brought this to the attention of the Court Administrator in a letter dated 14 December 2007 to seek assistance on the matter. Despite this difficulty, respondent was still able to elevate the records of the case on 17 March 2008 or within three [3] months from the time the urgent ex parte motion to elevate the records was filed. To avoid further delay in the transmittal of the records, respondent even spent personal money to defray the costs of photocopying the records. There is no more neglect of duty to speak of since the records had already been elevated to the Court of Appeals two (2) months before the filing of the instant complaint.
As regards the allegation that the court's statement in the 28 July 2005 Order that the rest of the 18 March 2005 decision stays, is null and void in view of Section 6, Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, is misleading because it is Section 7 of the said Rule and not Section 6 thereof, as complainants claim, that is applicable. Suffice it to state that the said order refers only to the third party complaint filed by herein complainants against Sonia de Jesus, which is independent of the main case; hence, the ruling that the rest of the decision dated 18 March 2005 stays.
Likewise, the allegation that respondent judge and her branch clerk of court are not reading the record[s] is preposterous.
Finally, respondent believes that the instant complaint was filed due to the prodding of complainants' counsel, Atty. Elena P. Tec-Rodriguez.
Complainants filed a Reply dated 10 July 2008 reiterating their allegations in the complaint. The OCA Report sums up some of the points that were raised in the Reply:
The claim of respondent judge that the elevation of the records of the subject case was done promptly and expeditiously is misleading and is belied by the events that transpired. Complainants point out that the notice of appeal was granted in respondent judge's Order dated 5 September 2006. She was justified not to elevate the records of the case in view of the pending petition for relief, but only until 18 July 2007, the date said petition was decided. Complainants' counsel still had to remind the branch clerk of court and to call respondent judge's attention in an urgent ex parte motion to elevate records to the Court of Appeals (filed on 1 December 2007) so that the matter may be acted upon.
Yet, respondent judge still failed to direct the transmittal of the case records on time. She admits that the records were elevated to the appellate court three (3) months after the urgent ex parte motion was filed or only on 17 March 2008. This is a clear violation of the Rules which requires only thirty (30) days to transmit the case records to the appellate court.
Respondent filed a Rejoinder dated 19 July 2008 reiterating her defenses in the Comment.
The OCA noted that per verification with the Special Cases Section of the Court of Appeals, CA G.R. SP No. 101180, entitled Sps. Policarpio and Alicia Carada v. Hon. Aida Estrella Macapagal, Presiding Judge, Br. 195. RTC; Paranaque city, et al. is still pending. The Special Cases Section is still awaiting the order from the Presiding Justice for the re-raffle of the case in view of the retirement of the former ponente of the case. On the other hand, according to the Civil Section of the Court of Appeals, complainants' appeal is docketed as CA G.R. No. 90832 and has just been re-raffled and is still pending.
The OCA made the following evaluation and recommendation:
EVALUATION: The justness and correctness of the subject decisions as well as the applicability of the laws and jurisprudence cited therein are matters that are judicial in nature. The questions raised by complainants on these matters cannot therefore be reviewed in the instant administrative case but through judicial review. Settled is the rule that errors committed by a judge in the exercise of his adjudicative functions cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should be assailed through judicial remedies (Atty. Marapao v. Judge Amila, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2071, 24 March 2008). Aware of the proper judicial remedies available to them, complainants have filed a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals, which is still pending with said court and an appeal of the subject decision with the same appellate court which is likewise still pending review and evaluation.
It bears emphasis to stress that disciplinary proceedings against judges do not complement, supplement, or substitute judicial remedies, and an inquiry into their administrative liability arising from judicial acts may be made only after other available remedies have been settled. In fine, an administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment (Atty. Marapao v. Judge Amila, ibid.).
In view of the foregoing, the instant complaint must hence fail insofar as the judicial issues raised by complainant are concerned.
On the other hand, there appears to be merit to complainants' allegation that there was delay in transmitting the records of their case to the Court of Appeals.
Complainants' notice of appeal was granted in the Order dated 5 September 2006. Complainants themselves, submit though that respondent was justified not to elevate the records of the case until 18 July 2007. in view of a pending petition for relief from judgment which was denied by the court on said date. It appears that a motion for reconsideration was also filed and was denied by the court on 9 October 2007. Meanwhile, the records remain[ed] with respondent's court. Complainants' petition for certiorari was filed with the Court of Appeals on 31 October 2007. Still, the records were not transmitted to the appellate court that complainants' counsel had to file an urgent ex parte motion to elevate records to the Court of Appeals on 11 December 2007. The records of the case [were] finally transmitted to the Court of Appeals only on 17 March 2008. Undeniably, there was delay in the transmitted of the case records to the Court of Appeals.
While the duty to transmit the records to the appellate court lies with the clerk of court, it is [nonetheless] the duty of respondent judge to ensure the delivery of this duty, as provided under Section 2, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, effective 1 June 2004) which states that "[j]udges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court's operations."
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is the recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED Respondent judge should, however, be ADMONISHED for the delay in the transmittal of the case records to the Court of Appeals with WARNING that a similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely.
Finding the OCA's evaluation to be well-founded and reasonable, the Court hereby adopts and approves its findings of fact, conclusions of law and recommendation in the aforequoted Report and Recommendation. The reason for the rule requiring prompt transmittal of records in appealed cases is to ensure the speedy disposition of the case. Respondent judge's failure to monitor the performance of her clerk of court had resulted in a delay in the administration of justice.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Presiding Judge Aida Estrella Macapagal of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Para�aque City, Br. 195 liable for delay in the transmittal of the case records of Civil Case No. 99-0197 to the Court of Appeals and is accordingly ADMONISHED and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely. The charges of knowingly rendering an unjust decision/order and gross ignorance of the law against her are DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of court