ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1318.February 28, 2001]

ZIGA vs. ATTY. AREJOLA

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28 2001.

A.M. No. MTJ-00-1318(Nelia A. Ziga vs. Atty. Ramon A. Arejola.)

This is a complaint filed on May 30, 1997 against respondent Atty. Ramon A. Arejola for "disregard of the lawyer's duty to represent and protect the interest of his client." herein complainant Nelia A. Ziga. Complainant alleges that as counsel for the heirs of Fabiana Arejola, respondent failed to ask for the correction of her name in the decision of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Naga City, which ordered the registration of a parcel of land in the names of said heirs and used the erroneous name in the deed of sale which he prepared in selling the said land to the City of Naga.

On June 9, 1997, respondent was appointed Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte. For this reason, the Court ordered on August 23, 2000 the case to be redocketed as an administrative matter and referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation.

In its report, dated January 24, 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator recommends that respondent "be cleared of any administrative liability in so far as the Office of the Court Administrator is concerned" and that the case be referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant on the ground that the acts complained of were allegedly committed before respondent's appointment to the judiciary.

Charges against judges, even if made for acts committed by them before their appointment to the judiciary, are to be investigated by the Office of the Court Administrator pursuant to Rule 139-B, �1, as amended, which provide in pertinent part as follows:

[C]harges filed against Justices and Judges before the IBP, including those filed prior to their appointment in the Judiciary, shall immediately be forwarded to the Supreme Court for disposition and adjudication.

The reason for this is that such acts may reflect on or affect the judicial function of the respondent. Thus even if the complaint in this case was filed on May 30, 1997, before respondent's appointment to the judiciary on June 9, 1997, the matter should be investigated by the Office of the Court Administrator.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED to RETURN the case to the Office of the Court Administrator for investigation, report, and recommendation within ninety (90) days from notice hereof.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE