Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > September 2008 Resolutions > [A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2976-RTJ : September 17, 2008] ATTY. LOURDES I. DE DIOS V. ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE JOSEFINA D. FARRALES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 72, OLONGAPO CITY :

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

A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-2976-RTJ (Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios v. Acting Presiding Judge Josefina D. Farrales, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 72, Olongapo City) - This resolves the letter-complaint filed by complainant charging respondent Judge Josefina D. Farrales with gross ignorance of the law, abuse of authority and usurpation of the powers of the Supreme Court.

In 2001, this Court suspended complainant from the practice of law for six months which complainant claimed she had already served  beginning 16 May 2001 until 16 November 2001. On 17 November 2001, she commenced her law practice with notice to this Court. Six years later or on 9 March 2007, she received a letter-directive from respondent Judge requiring her to comment on the 1^st Indorsement dated 22 February 2007 of then Court Adminsitrator Christopher O. Lock. Said Indorsement states, to wit:

1^st Indorsement
22 February 2007

Respectfully referred to the Hon. Ramon S. Caguioa, Executive Judge, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City, the resolution dated January 26, 2001 of the Supreme Court in A.C. No. 4943 suspending Atty. Lourdes I. de Dios from the practice of law, the letter dated February 12, 2007 from the Office of the Bar Confidant stating that the Supreme Court has not yet allowed Atty. De Dios to resume her practice of law and the Notarial Commission of Atty. De Dios for the year 2007 and 2008, for revocation of the said commission pursuant to Section 1, Rule XI of the 2004 Rules on Notarial Practice and for whatever action he deems appropriate.^[1]

Complainant complied explaining in her comment that she had already served her suspension as evidenced by her Manifestation that was noted by this Court in its Resolution dated 30 January 2002. She likewise intimated therein that she would file a motion for clarification with this Court. She alleged that although she was merely ordered to comment, respondent Judge furnished not only the Court Administrator but all the Presiding Judges of the RTC, Olongapo City; MTCC, Olongapo City; MTC of Subic, Zambales; and MCTC of San Marcelino-Castillejos, Zambales with the letter-directive, thus generating the rumor that she was practicing law without her suspension being first lifted by this Court. She further averred that without waiting for any action from this Court on her motion for clarification, respondent Judge ordered her to desist from the practice of law and revoked her notarial commission for 2007 amd 2008. According to complainant,respondent Judge should have required her merely to comment on the indorsement. She contended that respondent Judge should have been aware that administrative cases are treated with strict confidentiality; and that the Court Administrator has jurisdiction only over judges and court personnel and not over private legal practitioners. She alleged that she suffered damages during the two months she was unable to practice her profession and insisted that respondent Judge be sanctioned for the latter's indiscretion.

In her Comment,^[2] respondent Judge denied the charges against her as baseless and malicious. She explained that it was customary for her as executive judge to furnish all courts within her territorial jurisdiction copies of the 1^st indorsement. She further averred that she merely implemented her superior's order and performed a ministerial duty under the circumstances. She alleged that when complainant  filed her comment to the indorsement, the latter did not submit a certification evidencing the lifting of her suspension and clearly authorizing her to resume her practice. Consequently, respondent Judge enjoined her from practicing and revoked her notarial commission pending her submission of the required certification.^[3] However, upon complainant's submission of a machine copy of this Court's Resolution dated 23 April 2007 considering her to have served her suspension and deeming her practice for the previous years proper, respondent Judge immediately vacated her previous directive.^[4] She further alleged that during the two months that complainant claimed she was unable to practice, respondent Judge allowed her resettings when applicable while awaiting the certification removing the cloud of doubt on complainant's authority to practice as proof that respondent Judge was not motivated by ill will or malice against complainant but was only performing a ministerial function.

In her Reply,^[5] complainant reiterated her contention that respondent Judge exceeded her authority when the latter effectively suspended her again and revoked her notarial commission absent a clear directive in the said indorsement ordering her to do so. She maintained that respondent Judge should have been extra careful in her actions in order not to cause injustice and destroy the reputation of another.

In his Report,^[6] Court Administrator Jose P. Perez recommended that the instant complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. He found, thus:

The respondent Judge acted in good faith. There was no malice on her part when she caused copies of her directive to be sent to the courts concerned.

We note that when the respondent Judge advised the complainant to desist from the practice of law and when she revoked the complainant's notarial commission, she was merely implementing the order of a superior. We find that no malice and bad faith attach to the respondent Judge's action.^[7]

This Court finds the Court Administrator's findings and recommendations to be in accord with fact and law. Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in the complaint.^[8] Here, complainant failed to sufficiently prove that respondent Judge intended to malign her and to damage her reputation when the latter furnished the different courts of Olongapo City copies of her directive. As correctly found by the Court Administrator, respondent Judge acted in good faith as clearly shown by the latter's directive enjoining complainant from the practice of law pending her submission of a certification evidencing the lifting of her suspension as well as the directive immediately vacating the previous one and reinstating her notarial commission upon her submission of the required certification.

WHEREFORE, the complaint is DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, p. 12.

^[2] Id. at 128-130.

^[3] Id. at 96.

^[4] Id. at 98.

^[5] Id. at 142-144.

^[6] Id. at 1-4.

^[7] Id. at 3-4.

^[8] Adajar v. Develos, A.M. No. P-05-2056, 18 November 2005; Morales, Sr. v. Judge Dumlao, 427 Phil. 56, 62 (2002).