ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 99-681-MTJ.� February 28, 2005]
DEQUI�A vs. RAMIREZ
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 28 2005.
A.M. No. OCA IPI 99-681-MTJ (Nestor Ernesto Dequi�a vs. Judge Rolando V. Ramirez and Clerk of Court Sandra M. Ledesma, both of MTCC, Cadiz City.)
R E S O L U T I O N
Before us are two letters dated December 8, 2004 and January 17, 2005 sent by complainant Nestor Ernesto Dequi�a. Both letters contain serious allegations of misconduct and concerted actions of the Division Clerk of Court and Assistant Division Clerk of Court of the First and Second Division, the Court Administrator and Deputy Court Administrator which allegations sprung from the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed by Dequi�a against Judge Rolando Ramirez and Clerk of Court Sandra M. Ledesma. For the record, the Court has already issued Resolutions [1] cralaw which noted without action Dequi�a's similar letters of the same contents due to the dismissal of the said administrative case.
In his letters, Dequi�a questions the following Court procedures, to wit:
1. the referral to the Chairman of the Second Division of his letter dated December 8, 2004;
2. the Resolution dated September 11, 2002 transferring the case from the First Division to the Second Division issued by the Court through the Division Clerk of Court with the complimentary close "Very truly yours";
3.������ the transfer of the case from the First Division to the Second Division without resolving his "Manifestation and Urgent Ex-Parte Motion to be Furnished Certified Copy of the Resolution from Whence the Minute Resolution was Issued" filed on April 4, 2002;
4.������ the Resolution dated July 30, 2003 noting without action his undated letter of complaint referring to "case fixing syndicate" in the Court in view of the dismissal of the administrative case for lack of merit in the Resolution dated February 6, 2002;
5.������ the minute resolutions are without "ponencias";
6.������ the records of this administrative case and another case (OCA IPI No. 04-1599-MTJ) involving respondent Judge Rolando Ramirez were not with the Second Division but with DCA Zenaida N. Elepa�o;
7.������ the dismissal of other cases involving Judge Ramirez [2] cralaw by minute Resolutions issued by the Division Clerks of Court and Assistant Division Clerks of Court.
On the said bases, Dequi�a concluded that a "syndicate" intercepts all his pleadings so that it would not reach the Justices and that the Division Clerks of Court and the Assistant Division Clerks of Court issued the minute Resolutions. Dequi�a asserts that the cases against Judge Ramirez were "whitewashed" through the connivance of the aforesaid court officials and that the February 6, 2002 Resolution dismissing this administrative case is spurious.
Said conclusions are mere misconceptions on the part of Dequi�a which are absolutely unfounded and unfair.
The transfer of a case from one division to another division does not affect the transferred case. The case had to be transferred to another Division in view of the ponente's transfer to another Division by reason of reorganization of the three Divisions brought about by new appointments to the Court. The ponente carries with him in the new Division all the cases assigned to him. The identity of the ponente of the case is strictly confidential to avoid any misdeeds by possible misguided court employees. Even the Division Clerks of Court do not know to whom the cases are assigned. And since the said administrative case was deliberated upon by the Second Division, Dequi�a's letter dated December 8, 2004 has to be referred to Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairman of the Second Division for appropriate action.
The agenda for each session are taken up and deliberated upon by the Justices. It is the duty of the Division Clerks of Court and/or the Assistant Division Clerks of Court to reproduce the minutes taken in the sessions of the Court Division. These minute Resolutions are sent to the concerned party in a letter form signed by the Division Clerks of Court or by the Assistant Division Clerks of Court, hence the closing remarks "Very truly yours." It does not in any way show personal interest on the part of the aforesaid court officials as Dequi�a claims but it is only in keeping with the rules on correct letter writing.
Dequi�a also finds fault and malice on the fact that the folder of the subject cases containing all the documents relative thereto was with DCA Zenaida Elepa�o. He maintains that DCA Elepa�o is coddling respondent Judge Ramirez because it has been observed by him that DCA Elepa�o maintains unholy liaisons with the said respondent judge in Cadiz City, Sagay City, Bacolod City in Negros Occidental and even in Manila where Judge Ramirez was seen at the office of DCA Elepa�o after the seminar conducted by the Philippine Judicial Academy in Ilocos Norte sometime in November 2004.
As a matter of procedure, whenever a complaint is filed against a judge or a court personnel and after the completion of all necessary pleadings required thereto, the Court refers the same to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for evaluation, report and recommendation. Thus, in a Resolution dated August 29, 2001, the Court referred this administrative case (OCA IPI NO. 99-681 - MTJ) to the OCA, which in turn was raffled to DCA Elepa�o. Necessarily the records will be forwarded to her for study.
The allegation of Dequi�a that the entire records of this administrative complaint (OCA IPI No. 99-681- MTJ) were pilfered or had disappeared has been duly addressed to by then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo as can be gleaned from the letter of Justice Benipayo dated March 23, 2000 in response to the letter of Dequi�a dated November 23, 1999 regarding the alleged pilferage. Moreover, the said records have been forwarded to the Court which were subjected to careful scrutiny and study, and based on said records, together with the report and recommendation of the Investigating Judge and of the OCA, this administrative case has been dismissed in the Resolution dated February 6, 2002.
With these elucidations, the Court hereby puts an end to Dequi�a's unfounded accusations. No further letter or pleading of the same or similar import shall be entertained.
The other plaints of Dequi�a, to wit:
1.� That in the other administrative case, OCA IPI No. 04-1599-MTJ, against the respondent judge, the OCA issued a First Tracer directing anew respondent judge to file his Comment on the said case on the ground that per their record, no Comment has yet been filed, Dequi�a concludes that a "substitution scheme" is in the offing because respondent judge has already filed an "unresponsive" and "unmeritorious" Comment dated September 14, 2004 as evidenced by a copy furnished to Dequi�a and that with the "disappearance" from the records, Judge Ramirez is being given an opportunity to file another Comment with meritorious defense;
2.� That the inclusion of the records in the criminal cases he filed against persons other than respondent Judge Rolando Ramirez which the Prosecutor of Cadiz City referred to the Court in compliance with the Resolution dated August 5, 2002 is unfair and detestable.
should be referred to the OCA for appropriate action.
The Court has earlier issued a Resolution dated January 29, 2003 directing the OCA to comment on such inclusion. However, it appears that up to date, the OCA has not filed its compliance thereto.
ACCORDINGLY, henceforth all letters/pleadings which reiterate the same issues heretofore discussed will no longer be entertained and shall be EXPUNGED from the records.
The records of Criminal Case I.S. No. 8608 entitled "Nestor Ernesto P. Dequi�a vs. Rolando V. Ramirez, Judge Designate, MTCC, Cadiz City, Negros Occidental" is REFERRED to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation, within thirty (30) days from receipt of said records.
The OCA is DIRECTED to COMMENT on the alleged loss of the Comment dated September 14, 2004 filed by Judge Rolando Ramirez in OCA IPI No. 04-1599-MTJ; and to COMPLY with the Resolution dated January 29, 2003, both within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Resolution dated February 26, 2003 and Resolution dated July 30, 2003.
[2] cralaw Orders of issuance of writs of Execution and writ of Demolition pending determination of the petitions for review filed by the concerned parties (G.R. No. 143653, G.R. Nos. 145256-57 and GR No. 149441).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
