ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. RTJ-05-1895. January 11, 2005]

TORRES vs. GUTIERREZ

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court JAN 11 2005.

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1895 (Rosita B. Torres vs. Judge Pedro D.L. Gutierrez, Michael L. Bernardo, Legal Researcher II, and Severino D.C. Balubar, Jr., Sheriff IV, RTC, Branch 118, Pasay City.)

In February 2004 Ms. Rosita B. Torres filed an administrative complaint against Judge Pedro de Leon Gutierrez in OCA IPI No. 04-1954-RTJ. Through an indorsement dated March 2, 2004, the OCA required Gutierrez to comment on the complaint within ten (10) days from notice.

On April 1, 2004 the OCA received from Gutierrez a letter-request for an extension of the period to file his comment. He said he had received the indorsement on March 6, 2004 but that he was on vacation leave from March 23 to April 20, 2004. He prayed that he be allowed to file his comment within ten (10) days from his resumption to duty on April 20, or up to May 1, 2004. In a letter dated April 14, 2004, the OCA granted his request. Gutierrez filed his comment on May 3, 2004 , a Monday.

The OCA's April 14, 2004 letter became the subject of a separate letter-complaint of Ms. Torres to the Office of the Chief Justice, charging Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco with grave misconduct for allowing Gutierrez to file his comment well after the lapse of the reglementary period. The OCJ endorsed this complaint to the OCA, who prayed, in a memorandum dated June 15, 2004, for the dismissal thereof.

In a Resolution dated June 22, 2004, on the prayer of the Office of the Court Administrator, we dismissed the letter-complaint of Ms. Torres for lack of merit. Torres sought a reconsideration of the resolution dated August 5, 2004. On August 24, 2004, we referred the motion to the Court Administrator who in turn requested a clarification of which particular complaint the Court dismissed in its June 22, 2004 resolution. At the same time, the Court Administrator prayed that the directive under the August 24, 2004 resolution be held in abeyance until after the June 22, 2004 resolution was clarified.

To clarify, it was the letter-complaint against Court Administrator Velasco that we dismissed. Our June 22, 2004 resolution was in response to OCA's June 15, 2004 memorandum. No mention was made in that memorandum of the original administrative case against Judge Gutierrez. As stated by Court Administrator Velasco in his October 6, 2004 memorandum, he made no recommendations as to what actions should be taken on the said administrative case.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE