ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.M. OCA IPI 97-347-P. July 21, 1999]
ROSARIO C. YU vs. EDNA V. MACEDA.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 21, 1999.
A.M. OCA IPI 97-347-P (Rosario C. Yu vs. Edna V. Maceda, Branch Clerk of Court.)
On September 11, 1997, complainant Rosario C. Yu filed a verified complaint against respondent Edna V. Maceda, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court Branch 6, Tacloban City, for Nonfeasance/Misfeasance and Incompetence.
It appears that on August 1, 1997, complainant, through her counsel, Atty. Ma. Lourdes Hilvano, filed before Branch 6, RTC of Tacloban City a motion for cancellation of bailbond in connection with Criminal Case No. 93-12-776. Atty. Hilvano requested that the motion be heard on August 6, 1997.
On the same day, respondent wrote Atty. Hilvano and stated that the motion may not be heard on August 6, 1997 as the presiding judge of Branch 6 has retired and no judge has been appointed to fill the vacancy. She further stated that the motion shall be calendared for hearing as soon as a new presiding judge is appointed.
Complainant asserted that respondent should have referred the motion to the executive judge to avoid delay in its resolution.
Complainant further alleged that respondent refused to act immediately on her request to obtain a copy of the court's decision or order and instead obliged her to return some other day, while she sat behind her table reading the newspaper. She also stated that respondent slept during office hours.
In addition, complainant also alleged that respondent has the habit of picking petty quarrels with litigants as well as with other members of her staff.
Commenting on the complaint, respondent said:
"x x x
"On August 1, 1997, counsel for the accused filed another motion for the cancellation of the bailbond (marked as annex B of the complaint) and I immediately acted on the said motion by informing thru a letter, Atty. Ma. Lourdes Hilvano that her motion will not be heard as requested on August 6, 1997 since Branch 6 of this court has no presiding judge yet. I did not submit the motion to the executive judge because the same was not addressed to the office of the executive judge, nor could I submit it to the pairing judge since there was no allegation of any urgency in the matter for the pairing judge to act upon it as the regulation requires. This is a very petty matter which can easily be resolved had the complainant Rosario C. Yu heed [sic] my advice to inform her counsel so that her counsel can see me and we can make the necessary steps to have the bond cancelled according to law.
"The other allegations like reading newspapers, sleeping during office hours, adopting an inconvenient system in the office, picking up (sic) petty quarrel, etc. are simply false." 1 [Respondent's Comment dated December 22, 1997.]
As regards respondent's failure to refer the motion to the executive judge or to the pairing judge, we find her explanation unacceptable. All courts personnel should keep in mind that all matters brought before the court must be acted upon with dispatch. The pairing system has been established in the trial courts to prevent undue and excessive delay in the resolution of the interlocutory and other incidental matters. Thus, Circular No. 7 dated September 23, 1974 provides that "(I)n the event of vacancy in any branch, or of the absence or disability of the judge thereof, all incidental or interlocutory matters pertaining to it may be acted upon by the judge of the other branch paired with it." Respondent, as branch clerk of court, should have referred complainant's motion for cancellation of bailbond to the pairing judge for immediate action, in accordance with Circular No. 7. Respondent's failure to forward the motion to the pairing judge despite the absence of a presiding judge in their sala has caused an indefinite delay in the resolution thereof. Respondent's complacency defeats the Court's efforts to render prompt and efficient service to the public.
The other charges against complainant, however, must be dismissed in the absence of concrete evidence to substantiate them.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, a FINE of P5,000.00 is hereby imposed upon Atty. Edna V. Maceda, Clerk of Court, Branch 6, RTC, Tacloban City, with warning that commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
