ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1547.July 30, 2001]

ANA PERLITA DIOSIMITO v. JUDGE NAPOLEON V. DILAG et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 30 2001.

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1547(Ana Perlita Diosomito v. Judge Napoleon V. Dilag, Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Naic, Cavite.)

Before us is the affidavit-complaint ¹ Rollo, pp. 1-4.filed by Ana Perlita Diosomito with the Office of the Court Administrator charging respondent Judge Napoleon V. Dilag, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naic, Cavite, Branch 15, with alleged Bribery and Violation of Sec. 3 (b) and (e) of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act) relative to Civil Case No. NC-98-931 entitled "Carolina Diosomito, Remedios Diosomito, Marieta Diosomito and Juan Diosomito, Jr. vs. Juan Diosomito" for Judicial Partition and Injunction.

In the said affidavit-complaint, it is alleged that:

1. Complainant Ana Perlita Diosomito is the granddaughter of Juan Diosomito, defendant in Civil Case No. NC-98-931, for Judicial Partition and Injunction, pending before the sala of respondent Judge Dilag. On October 20, 1998, her grandfather, Juan Diosomito, was served with summons and copy of the complaint in the said civil case. On November 4, 1998, the complainant in . behalf of her grandfather filed a letter-request with the court for an extension of time to file his answer. Subsequently, on November 10, 1998, Juan Diosomito filed his formal written motion for extension of time to file his answer. Respondent judge denied both the said letter-request of the complainant and the written motion of Juan Diosomito.

2. On December 9, 1998, their new counsel, Atty. Eufracio C. Fortuno, filed a Motion for Leave to Admit Answer which was heard on December 18, 1998. On March 19, 1999, Atty. Fortuno filed another motion praying for the resolution of the said motion for leave.

3. On April 8, 1999, the complainant went to said court in Naic to inquire about the status of the case. A certain Ronnie allegedly approached her and told her that respondent judge wanted to talk to her inside his chamber. The complainant then went inside the chamber of respondent judge and inquired about the nature of the case, specifically regarding the status of the Motion for Leave to Admit Answer of Juan Diosomito. According to the complainant, the respondent judge allegedly told her that if she wished the said motion to be resolved in their favor, she should give him Four Hundred Thousand Pesos (P400,000.00). ² TSN, June 19 2000, pp. 27, 29-30; TSN, July 18, 2000, p. 35.

4. On April 21, 1999, the complainant filed with the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI) an affidavit-complaint against the respondent judge for the purpose of requesting the NBI to conduct an entrapment operation against him. So, on April 27, 1999, after lunch, complainant went to the trial court in Naic, Cavite. She brought two (2) brown envelopes containing marked money in the amount of Three Hundred Thousand Pesos (P300,000.00) to be used in the entrapment operation. Upon her arrival in the court, she only saw Ronnie who told her to wait because respondent judge was not in court as he was in Manila attending a meeting. The complainant decided to wait for respondent judge until 5:00 o'clock in the afternoon but the respondent judge did not show up nor did he call. Since the entrapment failed, the NBI team and the complainant left the court area. Afterwards, the NBI returned the marked money to the complainant.

5. On May 18, 1999, their lawyer, Atty. Fortuno, received a copy of the Order of the court denying their Motion for Leave to Admit Answer; that Order though dated March 6, 1999 was only mailed on May 13, 1999.

Hence, the subject affidavit-complaint was filed by complainant with the Office of the Court Administrator praying for a formal investigation with regard to the aforementioned civil case.

Respondent judge, on the other hand, vehemently denied that there was any attempt on his part at extortion. He claimed that on April 8, 1999 he went home early in the morning as he could not work anymore in court for there was a power failure in the whole town of Naic, Cavite including in the Hall of Justice where the trial court is situated; and he also pointed out that the Court of Appeals dismissed Juan Diosomito's petition for certiorari questioning his (respondent's) ruling denying the aforesaid motion for extension of time to file answer and motion for leave to admit answer ³ Rollo, p. 332.

The complainant failed to show sufficient and credible proof to support her allegations. We are very much aware that only the complainant could testify on her behalf about any alleged attempted extortion, if any, as only she and Ronnie were present inside the respondent's chamber on April 8, 1999. Ranilo Solis, the clerk in-charge of the docket for criminal cases in respondent's sala, also denied that there was any attempt at extortion by respondent judge. The testimonies of NBI Special Investigators Joselito C. Guillen and Eric M. Nuqui, who took part in the planned but failed entrapment, do not contain any corroborative statement regarding Ronnie's alleged conversation with the complainant.

Whereas, the complainant stated in her affidavit-complaint that "(A)ll the conversations that transpired between me and this Ronnie relative as to how Judge Dilag wanted the money turn (sic) over had been taped, recorded and heard by the NBI agents who were with me at the time. Such NBI agents could testify on that respect," a careful examination of the testimonies of the said NBI agents revealed otherwise. They did not actually go inside the court building with the complainant and they were not able to witness, much less hear or record, any alleged conversation between the complainant and Ronnie. ⁴ TSN, September 18, 2000, pp. 21-22.Thus, the NBI agents did not corroborate the complainant's statement as they did not have personal knowledge of any alleged conversation between Ronnie and the complainant with regard to the charge of extortion. Subsequently, complainant even testified and admitted that only she and Ronnie were in the court hall when the alleged conversation between them transpired. ⁵ TSN, August 14, 2000, pp. 48-50.In other words, respondent judge was not even there. The NBI agents were outside the court hail and did not hear or witness any alleged conversation between the complainant and Ronnie. Complainant failed to adduce evidence to show that the man named Ronnie had any authority from or consent of respondent judge to speak in his behalf.

From the evidence gathered by the Investigating Court of Appeals Justice, Hon. Andres Reyes, Jr., it appeared that respondent judge issued an Order which states that the Motion for Leave to Admit Answer was deemed submitted for resolution. The hearing on that motion was held on December 18, 1998, but the respondent judge only signed the Order on January 14, 1999 and a copy thereof was mailed only on April 15, 1999. It also appeared that on March 6, 1999, respondent judge issued an Order which denied the Motion for Leave to Admit Answer and that Atty. Fortuno received a copy of said Order only on May 18, 1999, while Juan Diosomito himself received a copy of said Order on May 26, 1999. The copies of the said Order were mailed on May 13, 1999 at the post office of Naic and received by the post office of Cavite City on May 17, 1999.

It is significant that the Investigating Justice found no positive evidence that the respondent judge willfully and maliciously caused the delays in the mailing of the said court Orders. He also found no evidence of extortion.

However, the respondent judge appears guilty only of simple inefficiency for the late signing and releasing of the aforementioned Orders. There is simply no credible evidence to support the complainant's bare allegation that respondent judge attempted to extort money from her or her grandfather.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Judge Napoleon V. Dilag is hereby DISMISSED. However, respondent judge is hereby ADMONISHED for simple inefficiency for the late signing and release of court orders and WARNED that a repetition of similar acts or omissions in the future will be dealt with more severely by the Court.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE