ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. OCA IPI 99-856-RTJ.September 24, 2001]

LARRY S. LIM vs. JUDGE AGNES CARPIO et al.

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT 24 2001.

A.M. No. OCA IPI 99-856-RTJ(Larry S. Lim vs. Judge Agnes R. Carpio, RTC-Br. 261, Pasig City [formerly Acting Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 257, Para�aque City] and Atty. Ma. Teresita C. Obedencia, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC-Br. 257 Para�aque City.)

In a sworn letter-complaint dated 14 September 1999 Larry S. Lim accused respondent Judge Agnes R. Carpio, Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 261, Pasig City and former Acting Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 257, Para�aque City, of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and Gross Ignorance of the Law in prematurely acting upon and granting a Motion to Withdraw Deposit filed by the defendant Rufina Luy Lim in Civil Case No. 96-0262 entitled "Mondragon Personal Sales, Inc. v. Skunac Corporation and Rufina Luy Lim" of the RTC-Br. 257, Para�aque City, on the very same day it was filed in violation of the three-day notice rule.He likewise accused respondent Atty. Ma. Teresita C. Obediencia, Clerk of Court, RTC-Br. 257, Para�aque City, of violating the same law in receiving aforesaid Motion to Withdraw Deposit and having it resolved by respondent Judge notwithstanding the obvious lack of notice on the adverse parties.

Complainant alleged that respondent Clerk of Court moreover failed to promptly answer his counsel's query posed on 28 November 1996 regarding the name of the court employee who received the Motion to Withdraw Deposit, in violation of the law which mandates her to answer within forty-eight hours. ¹ Law adverted to was not specified by complainant.Such behavior, complainant averred, did not speak well of respondent Atty. Obediencia's behavior as a government employee who is supposed to serve the public.Complainant "strongly suspects" that there was money involved as respondents Judge and Clerk of Court would not have acted the way they did without pressure from defendant Rufina Luy Lim.

In her Letter-Comment dated 17 January 2000 ² Rollo, pp. 14-17. respondent Judge vehemently denied any personal association with Rufina Luy Lim or that any monetary consideration was involved in the issuance of her Order dated 14 October 1996 granting the Motion to Withdraw Deposit.On the contrary she immediately rectified her error by issuing another Order dated 27 November 1996 ³ Id., p. 37. this time directing defendant Rufina Lim to return to the Branch Clerk of Court the amount of P154,587.50 in rental deposits previously released to her by virtue of the Order of 14 October 1996.Moreover, she denied Rufina Lim's motion for reconsideration of her Order dated 27 November 1996 in yet another Order dated 12 March 1997 ⁴ Id., pp. 38-39.directing the latter to comply under pain of contempt.With the immediate rectification of the error she committed respondent Judge averred that she could not be held liable for gross ignorance of the law considering the rule that mistakes concededly committed by public officers are not actionable unless motivated by malice or gross negligence.

For her part respondent Atty. Obediencia likewise contended in a Comment dated 14 January 2000 ⁵ Id., pp. 48-51. that she was not guilty of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act; that she received the Motion to Withdraw Deposit in the regular performance of her duties and merely in the absence of the clerk-in-charge of civil cases; that the litigable nature of the motion was not immediately apparent from its face, hence, the three-day notice rule was not emphasized; that after receipt she left the motion on the desk of the clerk-in-charge who was the one who brought it inside the office of respondent Judge; and, that she did not in any manner influence respondent Judge into resolving the motion on the day it was filed as she could not dictate to the latter being her superior.

In a Memorandum dated 22 January 2001 the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that respondents be absolved from the charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act but that they be fined P1,000.00 each for ignorance of an elementary procedure with respect to filing motions.

We agree with the recommendation but increase the fine to be imposed upon respondent Judge to P5,000.00, and upon respondent Clerk of Court to P2,000.00.

Before discussing respondents' respective administrative liabilities, a background of Civil Case No. 96-0262, root of this administrative case, is in order.

Civil Case No. 96-0262 was an action for interpleader filed by Mondragon Personal Sales, Inc., against Skunac Corporation and Rufina Luy Lim in the latter's capacity as Special Administrix of the Intestate Estate of Pastor Y. Lim to determine the question of who between the two defendants was entitled to receive rental payments from the plaintiff who had previously entered into a contract of lease with Skunac Corporation of which Pastor Y. Lim was the President prior to his demise.

On 2 October 1996 judgment was rendered by respondent Judge, in her capacity as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 257, Para�aque City, declaring Rufina Luy Lim to be the rightful party entitled to receive the rental payments from the plaintiff. ⁶ Rollo, pp. 3-6.

On 14 October 1996 defendant Rufina Luy Lim by herself filed a Motion to Withdraw Deposit asking that the rental payments deposited by the plaintiff with the Clerk of Court be released to her as the rightful party entitled to receive the same as decreed by the court in the Decision dated 2 October 1996.The motion was received and granted on the same day.Hence, this administrative case.

The general rule is that all written motions shall be set for hearing as provided for in Sec. 4, Rule 15 of the rules of Court thus ⁷ Now as amended by Sec. 4, Rule 15, The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. -

Notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned, at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers accompanying it x x x x

No motion shall be acted upon by court without proof of service of notice thereof to all parties concerned, except when the court is satisfied that the rights of the adverse party or parties are not affected. ⁸ Sec. 6, Rule 15, Rules of Court; now Sec. 6, Rule 15, The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.This is because such a motion is considered as nothing more than a mere scrap of paper which should not be accepted for filing and, if filed, is not entitled to judicial cognizance. ⁹ Meris v. Ofilada, A.M.RTJ-97-1390, 5 August 1998, 293 SCRA 606, 614-615.In the case at bench, the subject Motion to Withdraw Deposit was not only accepted for filing by respondent Clerk of Court but, worse, acted upon and granted by respondent Judge on the very same day it was filed.

Respondent Clerk of Court contends that she is not administratively liable because she received the Motion to Withdraw Deposit merely in the absence of the clerk-in-charge of civil cases and that the litigable nature of the motion was not immediately apparent from its face.Such arguments cannot serve to exculpate respondent from administrative liability.The general rule that all written motions shall be set for hearing is quite elementary.Being the Clerk of Court and a lawyer at that, respondent was expected to be even more aware of the rule that when a written motion is filed one of the first things to do is to look for the requisite proof of service of notice thereof to all concerned parties.This is because only those motions which have been prepared and filed in accordance with the Rules on motions particularly the notice and proof of service shall be included in the Motion Calendar required to be prepared by the Clerk of Court. ¹⁰ Sec. Q(4), Chapter III, Manual for Clerks of Court.Otherwise, the motion should not be accepted for filing.In addition contrary to respondent Clerk of Court's assertion that the litigable nature of the motion was not immediately apparent from its face, a mere reading of subject Motion to Withdraw Deposit clearly revealed that it was seeking the execution of the main Decision itself rendered by respondent Judge on 2 October 1996 which has not yet even become final and executory at the time the motion was filed on 14 October 1996, or merely twelve (12) days after rendition of the judgment.The Rules of Court provides that execution shall issue only upon a judgment or order that finally disposes of the action of proceeding. ¹¹ Sec. 1, Rule 39, Rules of Court; now as amended by Sec. 1, Rule 39, The 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.And a decision is not considered final unless the period to appeal therefrom has already lapsed without any appeal therefrom having been perfected. ¹² Amarante v. Court of Appeals, No. L-49698, 3 May 1994, 232 SCRA 104, 109.

Respondent Judge on the other hand admits her error in prematurely granting the Motion to Withdraw Deposit.She argues however that it was a simple mistake which she immediately rectified by issuing an Order dated 27 November 1996 directing Rufina Luy Lim to return the rental deposits prematurely released to her by virtue of the erroneous Order dated 14 October 1996.She contends that mistakes committed by public officers are not actionable unless they were motivated by malice or gross negligence amounting to bad faith.

Although a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for an error of judgment committed it does not mean that he cannot be punished for negligence in the performance of his adjucatory prerogatives or for ignorance of elementary procedures.As we have repeatedly said, judges are expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural laws, ¹³ Cui v. Madayag, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1150, 5 June 1995, 245 SCRA 1, 10-11. more so of elementary rules, and are expected to maintain professional competence. ¹⁴ Canon 3, Rule 3.01, Code of Judicial Conduct.Ignorance therefore of a standard and fundamental requirement mandated by the Rules of Court renders a judge administratively liable.

ACCORDINGLY, for Ignorance of an Elementary Procedure, respondent Judge Agnes R. Carpio, RTC-Br. 261, Pasig City and former Acting Presiding Judge, RTC-Br. 257, Para�aque City, and respondent Atty. Ma. Teresita C. Obediencia, Clerk of Court, RTC-Br. 257, Para�aque City, are FINED P5,000.00 and P2,000.00, respectively, with warning that repetition of the same or similar act will merit a more severe sanction.

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