ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[RTJ-04-1834. July 28, 2004]
LIEU vs. JAURIGUE
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 28 2004.
RTJ-04-1834 (Chi Chan Lieu @ Chan Que and Hui Lao Chiung @ Leofe Senglao vs. Hon. Inocencio M. Jaurigue.)
This treats of the Motion for Reconsideration dated May 17, 2004 filed by the respondent, Hon. Inocencio M. Jaurigue, urging the Court to reconsider its Resolution dated March 31, 2004 severely reprimanding the respondent for gross incompetence, inefficiency and negligence and ordering him to pay a fine in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2.000.00) for dishonesty.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, the respondent seizes on the portion of the Court's Resolution which declared as a mere contrivance his assertion that the complainants' omnibus motion and motion for deposition filed on December 11, 2000 and January 17, 2001 were resolved in open court during the hearing on December 19, 2000. According to the respondent, the omnibus motion and motion for deposition are "almost the same;" hence, he was "unmindful of the latter since the tenor thereof was already ruled upon in open court on December 19, 2000. In other words, the Court treated the second motion as also the first motion so he did not pay attention to the former."
The records of this case, unfortunately, do not contain copies of the omnibus motion and motion for deposition filed by the complainants. Nonetheless, the Transcript of Stenographic Notes taken during the hearing on December 19, 2000 may be consulted to ascertain the truthfulness of the respondent's allegation that the two motions are "almost the same." A perusal thereof reveals that the omnibus motion and motion for deposition are distinct and separate motions.
Specifically, during the hearing on December 19, 2000, the counsel for the accused called the court's attention to an omnibus motion filed on December 11, 2000. It appears that the omnibus motion was on the subject of venue and jurisdiction. Thus:
ATTY. ROGELIO EVASCO;
For the Accused, your Honor. If your honor please, I sent the Omnibus Motion but up to the present my compa�ero did not file his comment. We might as well request for the resetting of the hearing and wait for the opposition on the part of the prosecutor, your Honor.
FISCAL DELGADO:
To be frank with the Court, I noticed from the record that this was filed only sometime on December 11 and the copy for the prosecutor's office was made through registered mail, your Honor and up to now we have not yet received the copy of this Omnibus Motion. So, may we request for a spare copy from the counsel?
COURT:
I think with or without the opposition from the prosecutor this Court is likely to rule on the matter. The fact that the crime was committed within this jurisdiction, the Executive Judge of Branch 45 in San Jose has no jurisdiction over the crime charged and with respect to the change of venue, I think it is only the Supreme Court who can rule on the matter. [1] cralaw
The transcript adverts to Barangay Captain Torreliza (whose deposition the accused sought) but there is no clear indication whether a motion to take his deposition was submitted for resolution during the hearing on December 19, 2000. What is evident, however, is the fact that the court itself did not consider the matter submitted for resolution. As can be seen from the following excerpt, the court did not make any ruling on the matter:
ATTY EVASCO:
Felesteo Telebrico, your Honor, to testify in this case, And likewise, your Honor, we have already a Certificate from the government doctor that the Barangay Captain Maximo Torreliza could no longer travel, so we reiterate our motion, the examination be physician [sic].
FISCAL DELGADO:
As far as the record is concerned, the alleged medical certificate for Barangay Captain Torreliza has not yet been submitted, your Honor.
ATTY. EVASCO:
Not yet, your Honor, we have a written motion to that.
COURT:
So you have to reiterate your motion and attached [sicjall the necessary documents.
ATTY. EVASCO:
Yes, your Honor. [2] cralaw
The foregoing bolsters our finding that the respondent merely fabricated his excuse for failure to resolve the motion for deposition filed on January 17, 2001. The Court cannot, therefore, give credence to the respondent's claim that the two motions were resolved in open court during the hearing on December 19, 2000. If anything, the respondent may be further chastised for presenting mendacious arguments in his Motion for Reconsideration in order to excuse himself.
At any rate, the Court's Resolution dated March 31, 2004 did not only concern the respondent's failure to resolve the motion for deposition. We also sanctioned his negligence in failing to consider the fact that the telegrams manifesting Torreliza's willingness and ability to testify in court, which the respondent used as bases for his Order denying the complainants' motion for deposition, were actually sent not by Torreliza himself but by Mayor Felesteo Telebrico. Further, we found the respondent guilty of gross incompetence and inefficiency in failing to prevent the anomalous situation in which his Orders supposedly dated January 16 and February 15, 2001 were served on the defendants only on June 13, 2001.
Be that as it may, since this is the first time in the respondent's 34 years in the judiciary that he is confronted with an administrative case, the Court is disposed to consider this fact as a mitigating circumstance and accordingly modify the penalty imposed upon the respondent. [3] cralaw
It appears that an earlier Resolution dated February 18, 2004 was inadvertently issued by the Court. It admonished the respondent for failure to act on motions within the reglementary period and directed him to promptly dispose of all matters submitted to him for resolution, with warning that commission of the same or similar acts in the future would be dealt with more severely.
WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated May 17, 2004 is GRANTED in part. The Resolution dated March 31, 2004 is modified particularly with regard to the fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) which we hereby eliminate and set aside. The respondent is severely REPRIMANDED for Gross Incompetence, Inefficiency and Negligence, with a warning that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The Resolution dated February 18, 2004 is hereby recalled.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDlCHI
YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 70-71.
[2] cralaw Id. at 74-75.
[3] cralaw Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Delia H. Panganiban, 343 Phil. 276 (1997); Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili v. Judge Jose O. Ramos, 311 Phil. 238 (1995).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
