ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1646-RTJ.� January 19, 2005]
OSOP vs. LUBAO
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 19 2005.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1646-RTJ (Abedin Limpao Osop vs. Judge Antonio C. Lubao, RTC, General Santos City, Branch 22. )
The present administrative matter arose when Abedin Limpao Osop filed a Verified Complaint dated November 29, 2002 charging Judge Antonio C. Lubao, RTC, with grave misconduct and neglect of duty relative to Civil Case No. 6381 entitled "Abedin Limpao Osop v. Macapado Muslim, et al." for injunction with prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The complainant, the plaintiff in the said case, was apparently employed as Assistant Professor IV at the Mindanao State University (MSU) and whose services were later terminated.
The allegations in the complaint and the respondent's Comment were summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its Report dated July 24, 2003 as follows:
The complaint alleges as follows:
1. The subject case was dismissed by Hon. Abednego O. Adre, the then presiding judge of RTC, Branch 22, General Santos City, on the ground of lack of jurisdiction;
2. On appeal to the Court of Appeals, the dismissal of the subject case was set aside and RTC, Branch 22, General Santos City, was directed "to hear and try Civil Case No. 6381 with utmost dispatch," and which decision was affirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court with finality. Hence, the subject case was remanded to Branch 22 for trial;
3. On June 26, 2001, complainant filed a motion to start proceedings anew and an amended complaint, to which the defendants in the subject case, through counsel, filed their opposition and answer on 28 June 2001 and 20 July 2002, respectively;
4. Since 06 July 2001 up to the filing of the instant complaint, there was not even a single hearing of the subject case that took place;
5. Respondent is incompetent since, except for complainant's motion to declare defendant MSU in default, which was resolved without the appearance of any of the parties and their respective counsels, the respondent failed to resolve the pending incidents in the subject case, such as: the issue on the amended complaint, the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, and the motion for summary judgment;
6. Defendant MSU deliberately failed to file its responsive pleading for a period of almost four (4) months from receipt of summons on 16 August 2001, but the respondent still waited for the Office of the Solicitor General to enter its appearance for defendant MSU;
7. Defendant applied or accepted an employment as a faculty member of the defendant MSU College of Law, knowing fully well that a case involving MSU as a party defendant was brought back to his sala a year earlier, and notwithstanding the fact that a number of cases may have been clogging in at least three (3) salas where he is assigned;
8. Had respondent complied with the directives of the Court of Appeals "to try and decide Civil Case No. 6381 with utmost dispatch," he could have decided the subject case even before he started teaching at MSU;
9. After respondent issued the Order dated 21 June 2002, where plaintiff (herein complainant) in the subject case was directed to secure legal assistance either from the Public Attorney's Office or the IBP- Socsargen Chapter, no further proceedings took place;
10. In an Order dated 21 October 2002, respondent inhibited himself from the subject case, which he should have done as early as June 2002 when he began teaching in MSU so that his delayed inhibition would not have caused complainant so much apprehension and anguish that he has to wait for a longer period for the final disposition of the subject case.
B. Comment dated 20 June 2003 of Judge Antonio C. Lubao, which denied the accusations in the complaint, and argued as follows:
1. Contrary to complainant's claim that no hearing took place after 06 July 2001 up to the filing of the instant complaint, as borne out by the records, several hearings on various motions were held after 06 July 2001;
2. There is no truth to complainant's allegation that respondent is incompetent since he failed to resolve the pending incidents in the subject case because -
a) Records show that the court already admitted the amended complaint, over the objection of the original defendants Muslim and Ramos;
b) He is justified in not resolving the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction because the dismissal of the subject case by the then presiding Judge of Branch 22, Judge Abednego Adre, was still subjudice, and the acts sought to be prevented in the complaint is already moot and academic because the complainant was already out of his job for almost four (4) years;
c) He drafted an order denying complainant's motion for summary judgment, but since there is a good reason for him to inhibit himself from said case, he opted not to finalize said draft and left the pending incident for proper disposition of the judge to which the case may be re-raffled. Eventually, the case was re-raffled to Branch 37, presided by Judge Eddie R. Roxas, who issued an Order dated 20 March 2003, granting the motion for summary judgment.
3. If there was delay in the proceedings in the subject case, the same should not be attributed to him as he merely complied with the requirements of due process as provided under the rules and as mandated by the Constitution. Considering that an amended complaint was filed and a new party defendant, MSU, was included therein, summons must necessarily be served to the new defendant, which under the law must be defended by the Office of the Solicitor General. The parties in the subject case filed several motions where responsive pleadings were filed;
4. Complainant's motion to declare defendant MSU in default was already overtaken by events, and was rendered moot and academic with the prior filing of the Office of the Solicitor General's manifestation/motion adopting defendant Macapado Muslim's answer to the amended complaint;
5. As borne out by the records, the subject case was not calendared for pre-trial because the complainant did not file the corresponding motion to set the case for pre-trial;
6. Respondent entertained countless motions in the subject case and disposed of most of them even prior to the finality of the directive of the Court of Appeals, which was affirmed by the Honorable Supreme Court in its Resolution dated 03 July 2000. Said resolution of the Honorable Supreme Court was received by respondent only on January 18, 2002.
7. As to the acceptance of the teaching position at the College of Law of MSU, respondent justifies, thus:
a) Even if he is handling three (3) salas, his decision to teach at MSU College of Law is not the concern of complainant;
b) Teaching Persons and Family Relations at MSU College of Law is for his own academic and legal development, and for the sake of his court and the service, as well as the incoming freshmen in said college. His sala was designated as a Family Court and he finds it necessary to update himself on family laws;
c) When he accepted the offer of Dean Lugares to teach at the College of Law, he was not aware that MSU has a pending case before him, and which fact he realized only when he was resolving the motion for summary judgment in the subject case;
d) In the performance of his duties as a judge, it is his style to maintain an index system wherein all pending cases are listed, indicating only the docket numbers; the proceedings in each case; the issues involved and the evidence presented, without the names of the parties or personalities involved therein;
e) When he realized sometime in November 2002 that MSU has a pending case in his sala, he inhibited himself from the subject case and opted not to withdraw from teaching. Apart from being too late to withdraw from teaching, he found it quite beneficial to the service since he became more familiar and conversant with the latest trends and developments on matters of great concern to Family Courts;. [1] cralaw
In a Resolution [2] cralaw dated September 17, 2003, the Court referred the instant administrative matter to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Arturo D. Brion for investigation, report and recommendation.
In his Report and Recommendation, [3] cralaw the Investigating Justice rejected the complainant's allegation that the respondent judge did not conduct any hearings in the subject case. He opined that by the nature of the incidents therein and considering that motions were filed, opposed, and acted upon by the respondent Judge, full-blown trial-type hearings were no longer necessary. As such, the fact that no such hearings were held in a span of sixteen (16) months, from June 2001 to October 2002, was of no consequence.
Anent the charge of incompetence as to the respondent Judge's failure to resolve the prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction, the Investigating Justice ruled that the motion was not seasonably resolved. As such, while the respondent Judge did not display incompetence on this score, there was some neglect on his part. The Investigating Justice, however, did not characterize the respondent Judge's failure to act on the said motion as gross neglect, and opined that the latter's inaction was tempered by his view that the preliminary injunction was, as it was in fact, moot and academic.
The complainant also cited as an indicator of the respondent Judge's competence, the fact that the motion to declare defendant MSU in default was resolved without the appearances of parties and their lawyers. The Investigating Justice opined that the allegation appeared to be the result of a mistaken reading of the trial court's Order of March 1, 2002. [4] cralaw
Thus, it was recommended that the respondent Judge be warned against accepting responsibilities outside of his judicial office and that an independent audit of his performance for the past three years be conducted.
In a Letter dated December 16, 2003 addressed to Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., Justice Brion enclosed the respondent's Rejoinder dated December 11, 2003, which was belatedly filed, and requested that the said letter be made part of the records of the case.
In the said Rejoinder, the respondent Judge explained his failure to file his rejoinder as directed in the Letter of the Investigating Justice dated October 29, 2003. He alleged that he had been waiting for a copy of the complainant's reply and that he had just discovered that unknown to him, Mrs. Marilyn Alano, his staff, had received it on November 11, 2003. Instead of informing him of such receipt, Mrs. Alano gave the complainant's reply to the clerk in charge of civil cases, Mrs. Melanie Oreta, who in turn forwarded it to Branch 37, thinking that the said reply should form part of the records of Civil Case No. 6381. According to the respondent Judge, the said civil case, which was the subject of the complaint against him, had been raffled to the said branch after he had voluntarily inhibited himself from trying it. The respondent Judge attached several affidavits [5] cralaw of court personnel, as well as a certification [6] cralaw to attest to his claim. The respondent blamed Mrs. Alano and Mrs. Oreta for his failure to submit his rejoinder on time.
In a "Motion to Admit and Consider the Rejoinder of the Respondent Judge" dated January 7, 2004, Judge Lubao reiterated the foregoing narration of events. He also mentioned that he had a telephone conversation with Justice Brion on December 5, 2003 concerning the filing of his rejoinder. He also clarified that while he was given until December 10, 2003 within which to file his rejoinder, he was under the wrong impression that he had ten (10) days from the telephone conversation with Justice Brion (December 5, 2003) within which to file the rejoinder. [7] cralaw
The complainant, for his part, submitted a Letter dated January 19, 2004 addressed to Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. in reaction to the said Letter with Motion to Admit dated January 7, 2004.
Thereafter, in a Resolution dated February 2, 2004, the Court resolved as follows:
Considering the administrative complaint against respondent Judge Antonio C. Lubao, RTC, Branch 22, General Santos City, and other related pleadings filed herein, and it appearing that there is no basis to hold respondent guilty of the charges of serious misconduct and gross neglect of duty, the Court resolves, upon recommendation of Court of Appeals Justice Arturo D. Brion in his Report dated 28 November 2003 to WARN respondent Judge Lubao regarding the acceptance of responsibilities outside of his judicial functions.
Justice Brion was required to comment on the respondent Judge's Letter dated January 7, 2004. The Court also adopted the recommendation of the Investigating Justice and directed the Office of the Court Administrator to conduct an independent audit of the respondent Judge's performance in the past three years. [8] cralaw
In his Comment on the respondent's Letter dated January 7, 2004, the Investigating Justice took exception to the respondent Judge's allegations in his Rejoinder, dubbing the latter's claim as to the timeliness of the filing of the said pleading as an "outright lie." The Investigating Justice made the following recommendation:
Given these alarm bells - sounded well before the respondent judge lied about the timeliness of the filing of his rejoinder - as well as the nature of the respondent's behavior before a representative of this Honorable Court in this administrative investigation, I respectfully submit that the Honorable Court should hold the respondent Judge accountable, not for or in relation, with the core complaints of incompetence and delay which have been laid to rest by the High Court's resolution of February 2, 2004, but for lying and trifling with the processes of this Honorable Court.
To put it bluntly, I recommend that - after considering the attendant circumstances and after satisfying the requirements of due process - the respondent Judge be penalized with a (1) one-month suspension from service, for lying to a duly designated representative of this Honorable Court (and, effectively, to this Honorable Court) on the matter of the timeliness of his rejoinder, thereby trifling with the processes of this Honorable Court in the course of the administrative investigation in caption. [9] cralaw
For his part, the complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's Resolution dated February 2, 2004, pointing out that the respondent ignored the Court's directive to file his comment on the complaint against him, considering that it took him a year to file his comment. According to the complainant, the recommendation of the Investigating Justice to merely warn the respondent Judge was not a commensurate penalty, considering that the latter's actuations amounted to "giving up judicial functions in favor of personal interest. The complainant also cited the December 16, 2003 Letter of Justice Brion to support his prayer that the Court review the case and impose the appropriate penalty on the respondent Judge.
In a "Manifestation and Reply to the Comment of Justice Arturo D. Brion" dated May 12, 2004, the respondent Judge further explained his side and apologized to Justice Brion, praying that the latter's recommendation for his (respondent's) suspension from the service for a period of one month be set aside.
It is a settled rule in administrative proceedings that the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. [10] cralaw A perusal of the complainant's motion for reconsideration shows that the grounds relied upon therefor are but mere reiterations of his allegations in the complaint. Moreover, heavy reliance is placed on the Letter dated December 16, 2003 of Justice Brion, which is, in fine, an entirely new matter altogether.
The Court resolves to DENY the complainant's motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1646-RTJ is considered CLOSED AND TERMINATED. However, considering Justice Arturo D. Brion's Letter dated January 7, 2004, recommending that Judge Antonio C. Lubao be suspended for a period of one (1) month for "lying to a duly-designated representative of the Court on the matter of the timeliness of his rejoinder thereby trifling with the processes of the investigation of the case," the Court resolves to REFER the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator, for evaluation, report and recommendation.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Rollo, pp. 53-55.
[2] cralaw Id. at 60.
[3] cralaw Id. at 62-86.
[4] cralaw Id. at 73.
[5] cralaw Annexes "D" an "E."
[6] cralaw Annex "F."
[7] cralaw Motion, pp. 2-3.
[8] cralaw Ibid.
[9] cralaw Comment dated May 3, 2004, pp. 10-11.
[10] cralaw See Urgent Appeal/Petition for immediate Suspension & Dismissal of Judge Emilio B. Legaspi, Regional Trial Court, Iloilo City, Br. 22, 405 SCRA 514 (2003).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
