Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions


Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > November 2008 Resolutions > [OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2989-RTJ : November 17, 2008] ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE ROMULO A. LOPEZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, MANILA :




THIRD DIVISION

[OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2989-RTJ : November 17, 2008]

ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE ROMULO A. LOPEZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, MANILA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 17 November 2008

OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2989-RTJ - (Anonymous Complaint against Judge Romulo A. Lopez, Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Manila)

R E S O LU T I O N

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

Filed with the Office of the Court Administrator is an undated anonymous letter charging Judge Romulo A. Lopez with Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Inefficiency relative to Criminal Case No. 03221 521 entitled, "People vs. Arnel Prestoza" for Illegal Recruitment and Estafa.

The anonymous writer alleges that the abovecited case was filed several years ago but the accused therein has not been arraigned up to the present because of a Petition for Review pending before the Department of Justice (DOJ).

In a First Indorsement dated 26 August 2008, Judge Romulo A. Lopez brands the unsubscribed letter as baseless intended merely to harass and to put him in bad light and prays that he be spared from any administrative liability. Contending that he is not remiss in his duty- Judge Lopez explains that Criminal Case No. 03221521 has been set for arraignment and pre-trial almost every month together with, the other related cases, Criminal Case Nos. 03-21817991, which were always postponed due to the motions filed by Atty. Oliver Lozano, counsel, for the accused, which were not objected to by the prosecution.

Judge Lopez claims that the writer may not be aware of what transpired during the proceedings, and of the fact that there are two (2) sets of cases being jointly heard by the court - Criminal Case Nos. 03-221521-26 and Criminal Case Nos. 03-218179-91 (the review of the latter cases was brought to the Court of Appeals from the Department of Justice and finally to the Supreme Court; that same were decided by the Honorable Court on 06 December 2007, while the subject cases are still left with the DOJ due to the accused's counsel's motion for reconsideration). He adds that while all the abovecited cases were set for trial together every time, when the defense counsel moved for postponement, the motion was for both sets of cases, which fact later confused him.

Judge Lopez chronicles the incidents in Criminal Case Nos. 03-221521 -26 (subject of this complaint), to wit:

  1. The cases were raffled to his court on 08 December 2003. A warrant of arrest was immediately issued for the arrest of accused Prestoza on 16 December 2003;

  2. On 15 March 2004, his court received a copy of the accused's omnibus motion to reconsider order of probable cause, motion to suspend proceedings and recall of warrant of arrest on the ground  that  other  related  cases  (Criminal Case  Nos. 03- 218179-91) filed against the accused were earlier raffled to his sala.   The  proceeding  was suspended  together with  the implementation of the warrant of  arrest there being  no objection from the public prosecutor;

  3. On 21 May 2004, the prosecution filed an ex-parte motion to set the case for trial.  However, the court received oil 04 June 2004 the defense counsel's manifestation that he has tiled a petition for review with the DOJ;

  4. On  22  June 2004,  the court issued  an  order setting the arraignment and pre-trial on 23 June 2004. The setting was postponed to 25 October 2004 as prayed for by the defense counsel without objection on the part of the public prosecutor;

  5. Before the date of hearing, on 18 October 2004 the defense counsel filed  an  urgent  motion to  extend  suspension  of proceedings because the setting for 25 October 2004 was in anticipation of the termination' of the review which was still pending. No objection was interposed by the public prosecutor despite receipt of a copy of the motion;

  6. On 25-29 October, 200z!, respondent was on leave hence the hearing was transferred to 07 December 2004. On that day again  the  defense  counsel moved  for  a  resetting  of the arraignment and pre-trial to 25 January 2005

  7. On 08 December 2004, the public prosecutor filed a motion to set the case for arraignment and pre-trial considering that the Petition for Review of the Resolution of the City Prosecutor of Manila filed by the accused  was dismissed by Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zu�o on 09 September 2004. However, before the court could set the arraignment and pre- trial, the defense filed an opposition dated 17 January 2005 on the ground that his motion for reconsideration has not yet been resolved;

  8. The arraignment and pre-trial was continuously set every month to 28 February 2005, 04 April 2005, 30 May 2005, 28 July 2005 and 29 September 2005. Said schedules did not push through due to the timely oral motions for postponements of defense counsel and without the objection of the prosecution;

  9. On 03 October 2005, defense counsel filed a motion to quash information manifesting that the purpose was for the court to fix the bail instead of awaiting the result of the petition for review with the DOJ";

  10. In an Order dated 13 October 2005, the court suspended its ruling on the accused's motion to quash information there being no resolution yet from the DOJ;

  11. Thereafter, the arraignment and pre-trial was reset to 06 December 2005, 02 February 2006, 23 March 2006, 11 May 2006, 29 June 2006 and 02 August 2006. Said dates of hearing did not push through due to the timejy motions for postponement of Atty. Lozano without the objection of the prosecution;

  12. On 04 September 2006, Criminal Case Nos. 03-221521-26 and. Criminal Case Nos. 03-218179-91 were set for arraignment and pre-trail (the former still pending review before the DOJ and the latter with pending certiorari before the Court of Appeals), but was again reset due to the motion of defense counsel which was not objected to by the public prosecutor;

  13. All the above-mentioned cases were always set together on one and the same date such that if the defense counsel moved for postponement it was always for both cases;

  14. The setting on 04 October 2006: OS November 2006, 04 January 2007 were likewise postponed upon the timely motion of Atty. Lozano without objection on the pail of the public prosecutor;

  15. On 13 February 2007 respondent went on leave, hence the arraignment and pre-trial was transferred by the Clerk of Court on 24.May 2007 but did not push through because he was again on leave. The cases were then reset to 28 June 2007, 08 August 2007, 08 September 2007, 28 October 2007, 28 November 2007, 22 January 2008 and 28 February 2008 but were likewise postponed because of the motions filed by Atty. Lozano which were all unopposed by the prosecution;

  16. On 01 April 2008, respondent was indisposed hence the cases were reset to 30 April 2008. The same were postponed to 05 June 2008. On said dated, the court sent a communication to the DOJ requesting information about the pending review of Criminal Case Nos. 03-221521-26. No reply was received by . the Court;

  17. On 05 June 2008, it was even the public prosecutor who moved for the postponement of the cases to 08 July 2008;

  18. On 08 July 2008, the court directed the warrant officers of Pasay City to implement the warrant of arrest and to return the same; and

  19. The warrant of arrest was received by the Warrant Section of the Pasay City Police on 05 August 2008. Up to now the accused has not yet been arrested.

EVALUATION: The complaint should be dismissed for lack of merit. There is no basis in fact and in law to hold respondent liable for the charges of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Inefficiency leveled against him.

At the outset, we reiterate the rule that in administrative proceedings the complainant has the burden of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint (de la Cruz v. Bato, 451 SCRA 330). Substantial evidence in an administrative case consists of the amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion (Susa v. Pe�a, 411 SCRA 18). In the absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that . respondent has regularly performed his official duties (de la Cruz v. Bato, supra).

In this  case,  respondent judge  has  satisfactorily rebutted  the allegation that he delayed the arraignment of accused Arnel Prestoza.  As can be gleaned from the records, the long delay in the proceedings was brought about by the several motions for postponements  filed by the accused's counsel which were all unopposed by the prosecution, i.e. due to the pending petition for review raised before the Department of Justice and accused's motion for reconsideration on the resolution of Chief State Prosecutor Jovencito Zu�o. In fact, accused has not yet been placed under the jurisdiction of the court as he is still a fugitive of the law. As of 26 August 2008 (date of respondent's answer), no return has been filed by the Warrant Section of the Pasay City Police on the Warrant of Arrest dated 05 August 2008 against said accused.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the reconsideration of the Honorable Court is oar recommendation that the instant case against Judge Romulo A. Lopez, RTC, Branch 34, Manila be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord .with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Romulo A. Lopez is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court



Back to Home | Back to Main


chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






November-2008 Jurisprudence                 

  • [G.R. No. 184185 : November 26, 2008] VICTORIA N. MATA V. COURT OF APPEALS

  • [A.M. No. P-08-2473 [Formerly AM, OCA DPI No. 08-2795-P] : November 26, 2008] JUDGE MONINA S. MISAJON V. ARLYN 0. MINGUEZ, INTERPRETER, MTC, SAN JOSE, ANTIQUE

  • [G.R. No. 178688 : November 26, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. COURT OF APPEALS, CAI XIHE @ CHUA SAK HAP, TIAN SANG, CAI DUSHI @ CHUA TOK SIT, YAN QIZHONG @ SING HONG, LAO CHI DIAK @ CHI JAK, KING CHENG, AND HIM CHAMOU @ CHA BO

  • [A.M. No. OCA IPI No. 08-122-CA-J : November 25, 2008] MS. MARILYN P. REPANE VS. JUSTICE ROSMARI O. CARANDANG, COURT OF APPEALS

  • [G.R. No. 184474 : November 25, 2008] FERDINAND N. TALABONG VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS); G.R. NO. 184477 (WALFREDO J. SUMILANG VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS); AND G.R. NO. 185134 (FRUMENCIO E. PURGAR AND HOBART DEVEZA DATOR, JR. VS. SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • [G.R. No. 180046 : November 25, 2008] REVIEW CENTER ASSOCIATION OF THE PHILIPPINES, INC. VS. EXECUTIVE SECRETARY EDUARDO ERMITA, ET AL

  • [G.R. No. 184474 : November 25, 2008] FERDINAND N. TALABONG VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS); G.R. NO. 184477 (WALFREDO J. SUMILANG VS. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS); AND G.R. NO. 185134 (FRUMENCIO E. PURGAR AND HOBART DEVEZA DATOR, JR. VS. SECRETARY EDUARDO R. ERMITA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE EXECUTIVE SECRETARY, SECRETARY OF THE DEPARTMENT OF BUDGET AND MANAGEMENT, AND THE COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS

  • [A. M. No. 04-11-319-MTC : November 25, 2008] RE: DESIGNATION OF ASSISTING JUDGE IN THE MTCC OF LAPU-LAPU CITY

  • [A.C. No. 7952 : November 24, 2008] EMMANUEL I. CRUZ V. ATTY. OSCAR L. KARAAN

  • [A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2637-P : November 24, 2008] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR [OCA] V. STANLEE D. CALMA, RTC, TAGAYTAY CITY, CAVITE, ORLANDO T. BACAY, JR. RTC, TOLEDO CITY, CEBU, AND VERONICA M. ORMITA, MTC, BANGAR, LA UNION

  • [G.R. No. 183940, November 24, 2008] BIENVENIDO CABRERA V. PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES

  • [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

  • [G.R. No. 184055 : November 24, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. RAMIL ESQUILONA A.K.A. "TIRO"

  • [OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2728-RTJ : November 19, 2008] SPOUSES GODOFREDO AND EUNICE BUCSIT V. HON. PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 5%, ANGELES CITY

  • [A.M. No. 08-5-120-MCTC : November 19, 2008] FAILURE OF ACTING JUDGE VIRGILIO G. BORJE, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT-TAGUDIN, IIOCOS SUR TO DECIDE SIX (6) CASES

  • [A.M. No. P-06-2220 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2331-P] : November 18, 2008] JUDGE JOSE G. DY VS. CHITO B. PACAO, LEGAL RESEARCHER, RTC, BRANCH 41, DAET, CAMARINES NORTE

  • [G.R. No. 123346 : November 18, 2008] MANOTOK REALTY, INC. ET AL. V. CLT REALTY AND DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.) ; G.R. NO. 134385 (ARANETA INSTITUTE OF AGRICULTURE, INC. V. HEIRS OF JOSE DIMSON, ETC., ET AL.) ; G.R. NO. 148767 (STO. NINO KAPITBAHAYAN ASSOCIATION, INC., V. CLT REALTY DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION)

  • [G.R. No. 178830 : November 18, 2008] ROLEX SUPLICO V. NATIONAL ECONOMIC AND DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY, ET AL.) G.R. NO. 179317 (AMSTERDAM HOLDINGS, INC., ET AL. V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.) G.R. NO. 179613 (GALELEO P. ANGELES, ET AL. V. DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. 08-11-648-RTC : November 18, 2008] RE: ARSON INCIDENT THAT OCCURRED AT RTC, BRANCH 18, TAGAYTAY CITY, ON OCTOBER 12, 2008

  • [A.M. No. 06-7-420-RTC : November 18, 2008] RE: INVENTORY OF CASE, SURETY AND PROPERTY BONDS ATTACHED IN CRIMINAL CASES IN THE RTC, BRANCHES 72, 73, 74 AND 75, OLONGAPO CITY.

  • [A.M. No. 08-8-463-RTC : November 18, 2008] RE: REQUEST FOR THE TRANSFER OF ARRAIGNMENT AND TRIAL OF THE ACCUSED IN CRIMINAL CASE NO. 1067-4.

  • [AM No. P-08-2518 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2560-P] : November 17, 2008] EXECUTIVE JUDGE EDGARDO LLOREN, RTC, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY V. WILLIAM M. PONFERRADA, CLERK III, AND MONETTE C. ABADINES, UTILITY I, RTC-OCC, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY

  • Name[G.R. No. 175598 : November 17, 2008] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. ROMEO LEGARTO AND V1CTORIO LEGARTO, JR.

  • Name[G.R. No. 181038 : November 17, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES VS. TEOFILO SALATAN Y GRAFE

  • [OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2989-RTJ : November 17, 2008] ANONYMOUS COMPLAINT AGAINST JUDGE ROMULO A. LOPEZ, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 34, MANILA

  • [A.M. No. 08-19-SB-J : November 11, 2008] ASSISTANT SPECIAL PROSECUTOR 111 ROHERMIA J. JAMSANI-RODRIGUEZ VS. JUSTICES GREGORY S. ONG, JOSE R. HERNANDEZ AND RODOLFO A. PONFERRADA, SANDIGANBAYAN

  • [G.R. No. 183591 : November 11, 2008] THE PROVINCE OF NORTH COTABATO, DULY REPRESENTED BY GOVERNOR JESUS SACDALAN AND/OR VICE-GOVERNOR EMMANUEL PINOL, FOR AND IN HIS OWN BEHALF VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN [GRP], ET AL.); G.R. NO. 183752 (CITY GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA, AS REPRESENTED BY HON. CELSO L, LOBREGAT, CITY MAYOR OF ZAMBOANGA, AND HIS PERSONAL CAPACITY AS RESIDENT OF THE CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL. VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE NEGOTIATING PANEL (GRP), ET AL.); G.R. NO. 183893 [FORMERLY UDK 14059] (CITY OF ILIGAN, DULY REPRESENTED BY CITY MAYOR LAWRENCE LLUCH CRUZ VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE PANEL ON ANCESTRAL DOMAIN [GRP], ET AL.); G.R. NO. 183951 (THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE, AS REPRESENTED BY HON. ROLANDO E. YEBES, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PROVINCIAL GOVERNOR, ET AL. VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE NEGOTIATING PANEL [GRP], AS REPRESENTED BY HON. HERMOGENES ESPERON, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE PRESIDENTIAL ADVISER ON PEACE PROCESS); AND G.R. NO. 183962 (ERNESTO M. MACEDA, ET AL VS. THE GOVERNMENT OF THE REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES PEACE NEGOTIATING PANEL REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN RODOLFO C. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • [A.M. No. P-03-1755 : November 11, 2008] JUDGE MANUEL S. SOLLESTA V. SALVACION B. MISSION, CLERK OF COURT II, MCTC, BANGA, SOUTH COTABATO

  • [A.M. No. 08-6-352-RTC, November 11, 2008] RE: QUERY OF ATTY. KAREN M. SILVERIO-BUFFE, FORMER CLERK OF COURT VI, RTC, BRANCH 81, ROMBLON,ROMBLON, ON THE PROHIBITION FROM ENGAGING IN THE PRIVATE PRACTICE OF LAW.

  • [A.M. No. 08-9-538-RTC : November 11, 2008] RE: DESIGNATION OF ADDITIONAL FAMILY COURT IN THE RTC MALABON CITY

  • [A.M. No. 08-9-539-RTC : November 10, 2008] RE: DROPPING FROM THE ROLLS OF MR. SALVADOR C. MIRANDO, SHERIFF IV, RTC, OCC, SAN ROQUE, IRIGA CITY

  • [G.R. No. 181031 : November 10, 2008] THE PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. ROSE BIROS Y BALDON

  • [G.R. No. 182346 : November 10, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JAIME MOOG Y ALVAREZ, PRIMO ARENA Y GONZAGA, FELXCISIMO LAYGO Y TANYANG, EDGAR ALVAREZ Y ENRIQUEZ, ALMARIO ABRASALDO Y REYES, RUFO ASTERO Y MENDIONA, DOMINADOR TORANO Y FEROLINO, MANOLITO SANOOVAL Y CUETO

  • [G.R. No. 182346 : November 10, 2008] PEOPLE OF THE PHILIPPINES V. JAIME MOOG Y ALVAREZ, PRIMO ARENA Y GONZAGA, FELXCISIMO LAYGO Y TANYANG, EDGAR ALVAREZ Y ENRIQUEZ, ALMARIO ABRASALDO Y REYES, RUFO ASTERO Y MENDIONA, DOMINADOR TORANO Y FEROLINO, MANOLITO SANOOVAL Y CUETO

  • [A.C. No. 7893 : November 10, 2008] TERESITA ENCARNACION P. LADERAS V. ATTY. MA. ARWIN JUCO SINAGUINAN

  • [A.M. No. SB-07-15-P : November 10, 2008] MANUEL M. TORIO, SUPERVISING JUDICIAL STAFF OFFICER, SECURITY AND SHERIFF SERVICES, SANDIGANBAYAN V. PEP1TO B. GUILLEN AND DANILO B. GALLARON, [1] BOTH REPRODUCTION MACHINE OPERATOR II, SANDIGANBAYAN