ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ. August 2, 2006]

JOSEPH YAP III v. JUDGE JOSE L. MADRID AND COURT STENOGRAPHER MERLYN D. DOMINGUEZ, BOTH OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG. 2, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2385-RTJ (Joseph Yap III v. Judge Jose L. Madrid and Court Stenographer Merlyn D. Dominguez, Both of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 51, Sorsogon City.)

Considering the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, to wit:

Complainant Joseph Yap III is the defendant in Civil Case No. 2001-6842 entitled "Joseph D. Yap [V], et al. vs. Joseph H. Yap III" for Support pending before the sala of respondent Madrid. He was assisted by his counsel, Atty. Gil S. Gojol.

The complainant alleges as follows:

1. On January 28, 2005, a decision was rendered on the aforesaid case ordering complainant Yap to provide his wife and three (3) minor children a monthly support of Twenty Five thousand pesos (Php25,000.00). Subsequently, plaintiffs filed a Motion for Execution dated February 15, 2005 of the said decision. Complainant filed an Opposition thereto on February 24, 2005.

In the meantime, on February 22, 2005, complainant filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the decision to which plaintiffs filed a Vigorous Objection/Comment dated February 28, 2005. The case was set for hearing on March 04, 2005.

On the scheduled hearing, Atty. Gojol and Atty. Juan S. Dealca appeared. Atty. Dealca informed the Court that complainant Yap wanted to secure his services vice Atty. Gojol. He further moved for the continuance of the hearing to iron out the matter of his and Atty. Gojol's representation in the case. He likewise informed the Court of his desire to present evidence in support of complainant's Motion for Reconsideration. The hearing was then reset to April 08, 2005.

Despite the aforesaid setting, respondent Judge issued an Order of March 04, 2005 which was allegedly given in open Court denying complainant's Motion for Reconsideration and granting plaintiffs' Motion for Execution. This prompted the complainant to look for the transcript of the proceedings of the hearing held on March 04, 2005.

Consequently, on April 05, 2005, complainant, assisted by Atty. Dealca, filed a criminal complaint charging respondents Judge and Court Stenographer Merlyn D. Dominguez with Falsification of Public Documents under Article 171 of the Revised Penal Code with the City Prosecution Office, Sorsogon City.

In their complaint, complainant alleges that respondents conspired to falsify the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing on March 04, 2005 by deleting Atty. Dealca's manifestation to be allowed to present evidence in support of the Motion for Reconsideration and the April 08, 2005 setting for the reception [of] such evidence.

However, in the resolution dated April 07, 2005, Asst. City Prosecutor Jude Salvador H. Hibo, City Prosecution Office, Sorsogon City, recommended that the complaint be forwarded to the Office of the Ombudsman having primary jurisdiction to investigate and prosecute cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan pursuant to Sec. 15, par (1) of R.A. 6770.

On June 02, 2005, the Office of the Deputy Ombudsman for Luzon referred the complaint to our Office to determine whether or not an administrative aspect is involved therein pursuant to the administrative authority of the Supreme Court over all court officials and employees. The case was likewise dismissed without prejudice to the outcome of the administrative case before us.

Hence, per 1st Indorsement dated December 07, 2005 of then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. respondents were required to file comment to the complaint. Respondent Madrid was likewise directed to comment on why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for violation of his professional responsibility as a lawyer pursuant to the resolution dated September 17, 2002 of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC.

2. In a joint comment filed on February 03, 2006, respondents vehemently denied the accusations hurled against them by complainant. They aver that the TSN taken during the hearing on March 04, 2005 completely and truthfully bears everything that took place during the hearing. They stress that there was no date for the resetting of the case as the motion for reconsideration was already deemed submitted for resolution. Moreover, the appearance of Atty. Dealca as counsel for complainant Yap was merely noted, not recognized, as he was not the counsel of record for complainant. It was only during the hearing on March 04, 2005 that Atty. Dealca appeared like a "knight in shining armor" to rescue complainant from his court-decided financial predicament. The Court even ordered Atty. Dealca to enter his appearance in deference to Atty. Gojol who has not yet withdrawn his representation. Atty. Dealca never formally entered his appearance in writing.

Respondents further assert that if ever there were discrepancies in the Court Order, the same can be corrected motu proprio by the Court in accordance with Rule 135 of the Rules of Court. They claim to have no motive for personal gain to tamper the transcripts of the proceedings because what was then at stake is the support for the neglected wife and the three (3) minor children of complainant.

As to why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for violation of his professional responsibility as a lawyer, respondent Madrid submits that he has not violated his professional responsibility as a lawyer in the discharge of his official duties as presiding judge of RTC, Br. 51, Sorsogon City (Family Court). He served with utmost dedication and obedience to his oath as a lawyer with only the end in view that justice is served to all who come to Court.

Respondent relayed that this instant complaint is the latest of a barrage of nuisance and harassment cases which comes with every civil and criminal case handled by Atty. Dealca who has the propensity to file administrative or criminal cases against judges for every case he loses. Atty. Dealca orchestrates the charges using his paying clients against judges and court personnel whenever a court decision, order or process is adverse to him and his clients. He was even warned by the Supreme Court for unethical practices in Administrative Case No. 4215 dated May 21, 2001.

As proof of Atty. Dealca's penchant for orchestrating the filing of unwarranted, baseless, unfounded and untruthful cases, respondent cited three (3) cases which were either noted without action or dismissed by the Court for lack of merit. Respondent emphasizes that if there is any one to be investigated for unprofessional and unethical practices and norms which are in violation of his Lawyer's Oath, it should be Atty. Dealca.

In a Manifestation dated February 20, 2006, Atty. Dealca submitted affidavits attesting to the alleged pernicious activities as a member of the judiciary of respondent Madrid.

EVALUATION: The mere issue in this case is whether or not respondents conspired to falsify the transcript of stenographic notes of the hearing on March 04, 2005 by deleting Atty. Dealca's manifestation of his desire to present evidence in support of the Motion for Reconsideration and the April 08, 2005 setting for the reception [of] such evidence.

As gleaned from the records, the complaint is only anchored in the bare allegations of complainant and Attys. Dealca and Gojol as contained in their Joint Affidavit dated March 31, 2005. The only evidence they have shown to bolster their claim of the setting of the hearing on the motion on April 08, 2005 are their calendars (Annexes "F" and "F-1") which merely indicated the title of the case. Said iota of evidence and circumstances cannot, by itself, overturn the presumption that respondents acted regularly in their performance of their official functions.

As aptly pointed out by respondents, they have no motive for personal gain to tamper the transcripts of the proceedings because what was then at stake is the support for the neglected wife and the three (3) minor children of complainant. Even the complaint itself does not contain any allegation that the alleged falsification was tainted by corruption nor biased against the complainant. And even assuming for the sake of argument that indeed the motions were [set] still set for hearing, it is still within the judicial prerogative of the Court to resolve the same without waiting for its hearing. Whether a respondent judge correctly denied the motion for reconsideration and granted the motion for execution are judicial matters which are not proper subjects in administrative proceedings.

Further, from the Court Order dated March 04, 2005 Atty. Dealca was required by the Court to put in writing his appearance as counsel for defendant (complainant) within five (5) days from receipt of the same. The directive was never heeded. What is more suspicious is Atty. Dealca's filing of a criminal complaint for falsification of document with the City Prosecutor's Office of Sorsogon City instead of filing a Motion to Correct the TSN of March 04, 2005 or taking the appropriate judicial remedy to protect complainant's interest.

It is an established doctrine and policy that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory of, nor a substitute for these judicial remedies, whether ordinary or extraordinary. A judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of his functions (People vs. dela Cruz, 383 SCRA 250). In the absence of proof to the contrary, a defective or erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith (Mina vs. Gatdula, 376 SCRA 1).

Moreover, the Court cannot be bound by the unilateral act of complainant in matters which involve the exercise of its judicial discretions; otherwise, that power may be put to naught thereby undermining the competency and impairing the integrity and dignity of the Court in dispensing justice. If a party is prejudiced by the order of a judge, his remedy lies with the proper court for the proper judicial action and not with the Office of the Court Administrator by means of an administrative complaint (Araos vs. Luna Pison, 378 SCRA 246).

Finally, the Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon all employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather th[a]n promote the orderly administration of justice (Ibid).

Considering respondent Madrid's allegations that Atty. Dealca has the propensity to file administrative or criminal cases against judges for every case he loses and to [sic] orchestrate[d] charges using his paying clients against judges and court personnel whenever a court decision, order or process is adverse to him and his clients in gross violation of his Lawyer's Oath, an investigation on the matter will be appropriate.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the administrative complaint against respondents Presiding Judge Jose L. Madrid and Court Stenographer Merlyn D. Dominguez, both of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 51, Sorsogon City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

Considering respondent Madrid's allegations that Atty. Juan S. Dealca has the propensity to file administrative or criminal cases against judges for every case he loses and orchestrated charges using his paying clients against judges and court personnel whenever a court decision, order or process is adverse to him and his clients in gross violation of his Lawyer's Oath, it is likewise recommended that the matter be REFERRED to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from notice hereof.

and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts of the case, the Court approves and adopts the same.

An administrative complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for certiorari, unless the assailed order or decision is tainted with fraud, malice, or dishonesty. [1] cralaw

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Jose L. Madrid and Court Stenographer Merlyn D. Dominguez is DISMISSED. Judge Jose L. Madrid's claim that Atty. Juan S. Dealca has the propensity for filing administrative or criminal cases against judges and court personnel whenever a court decision, order, or process is adverse to him or his clients in gross violation of his lawyer's oath is REFERRED to the IBP for investigation, report and recommendation within ninety (90) days from notice hereof.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Pitney v. Abrogar, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1748, November 11, 2003, 415 SCRA 377, 382.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com