ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. MTJ-02-1442.April 23, 2003]
SANORIA vs. JUDGE LEGASPI-DELOS SANTOS
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 23 APR 2003.
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1442(formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1115-MTJ)(Ramon Sanoria vs. Judge Alicia Legaspi-delos Santos.)
Before us is an administrative complaint filed by Ramon Sanoria against Judge Alicia Legaspi-delos Santos, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Digos City, Davao del Sur for Grave Abuse of Discretion, Negligence and Gross Ignorance of the Law.
In his letter-complaint dated August 22, 2001, complainant alleges that:he is the accused in three criminal cases for Estafa filed with theMTCC, Digos City, presided over by respondent Judge; on February 6, 2001, respondent issued a verbal order in open court, in the presence of the parties-litigants, granting the prosecution ten days from even date within which to submit their formal offer of documentary exhibits; the ten-day period expired without the prosecution having filed its formal offer of evidence; the prosecution subsequently moved for the postponement of the hearings that were scheduled on March 28, 2001 and May 30, 2001; both motions were granted; on July 25, 2001, the prosecution moved for an extension of time within which to submit their offer of exhibits; despite the objection of the defense, the trial court granted the motion in its order of the same date; on August 20, 2001, the defense filed a motion for reconsideration of the said order contending that the grant of an extended period to tile its offer of exhibits would favor the prosecution and deprive the accused of his right to due process of law; the respondent denied his motion for reconsideration.
In her Comment dated November 5, 2001, respondent judge admits that she issued a verbal order in open court granting the prosecution ten days within which to file its formal offer of evidence. However, she contends that the usual procedure followed in her office is to reduce a verbal order into writing so as to remind the lawyers of the said order. In the instant case, respondent claims that the written order remained unsigned and unserved due to an unintentional error committed by a member of her staff. Respondent admits that on two occasions, the prosecution asked for the postponement of the hearings, but in those instances, the defense did not bother to call the attention of the court with respect to the fact that the period granted to the prosecution to file its formal offer of exhibits had already expired. She adds that it is her impression that the prosecution, in moving for the postponement of the hearings, opted not to rest its case and instead adduce additional evidence. Respondent judge contends that no prejudice was done to the accused.
In a report dated June 10, 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) through then Acting Administrator Jose P. Perez, found that respondent judge was remiss in her duties as such but did not find any serious infraction committed by the respondent that would warrant administrative sanction. The OCA recommended the dismissal of the complaint with a reminder that respondent judge should adopt a more systematic and effective management of her office.
In a Resolution dated July 29, 2002, we required the parties to manifest within ten days from notice if they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings filed.
On September 11, 2002, respondent filed a Manifestation to support her prayer for the dismissal of the charge against her; complainant filed a Reply to the Comment earlier filed by respondent and manifested that he was submitting the case for resolution.
In a letter, dated February 7, 2003, Luciliza delos Santos, daughter of respondent judge, sought the resolution of the instant administrative case informing the Court that lieu mother died on January 30, 2003. [1] cralaw
In view of the death of respondent judge which has intervened pending resolution of herein administrative case, and the recommendation of the OCA which we find to be meritorious, pursuant to our ruling in Apiag vs. Cantero, [2] cralaw the dismissal of the instant complaint is in order.
WHEREFORE, the administrative case against deceased respondent Judge Alicia Legaspi-delos Santos is DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Per Death Certificate, Rollo, p. 72.
[2] cralaw Apiag vs. Cantero, 268 SCRA 47, 64 (1997).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
