ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1764-MTJ. July 19, 2006]

ATILANO S. GUEVARRA, JR. v. JUDGE JANSEN R. RODRIGUEZ, RTC, BRANCH 6, MANILA, IN HIS CAPACITY AS THE FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE METC, BRANCH 78, PARA�AQUE CITY

First Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 19, 2006

A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1764-MTJ (Atilano S. Guevarra, Jr. v. Judge Jansen R. Rodriguez, RTC, Branch 6, Manila, In his Capacity As the Former Presiding Judge of the MeTC, Branch 78, Para�aque City)

Acting on the Report [1] cralaw of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated June 14, 2006, to wit:

REASON FOR AGENDA: The Office of the Court Administrator received, on September 7, 2005, a sworn complaint from Atty. Atilano S. Guevarra, Jr., wherein he charges Judge Jansen R. Rodriguez, the then Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (Branch 78), Para�aque City, with violation of Rules 3.05 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

BACKGROUND: The administrative complaint stems from the June 3, 2005 Ex Parte Motion for Judgment filed via registered mail by Atty. Guevarra in his capacity as counsel for Lolita Abreu, the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 2005-104 (Lolita Abreu v. Claro Querubin: for Unlawful Detainer ) which was then pending trial at MeTC (Branch 78), Para�aque City. The motion was officially received by the court on June 9, 2005.

On July 11, 2005, Atty. Guevarra filed a second Motion for Judgment which basically reiterated the contents of his first motion.

When the second motion also fell on deaf ears, Atty. Guevarra decided to make a personal visit at MeTC, Branch 78, on August 26, 2005 to inquire on the status of the two motions he had filed. To his surprise, he discovered that the court had issued as early as June 27, 2005 an order granting his ex parte motion for summary judgment.

In filing the complaint, Atty. Guevarra charges Judge Rodriguez with violating Rules 3.05 (prompt disposition of the court's business and pending cases) and 3.09 (duty of the judge to organize and supervise the court personnel) of the Code of Judicial Conduct (superseded on April 27, 2004 by the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary under A.M. No. 03-05-1-SC).

Atty. Guevarra claims he received a copy of the June 27, 2005 order only on August 26, 2005 - a delay of close to two months. In addition, he received a copy of the decision only on October 4, 2005 - way beyond the ninety-day reglementary period.

In his Answer dated March 1, 2006 and received by the OCA on March 10, 2006, Judge Rodriguez conveys the information that he decided Civil Case No. 2005-104 on September 5, 2005 - two days before Atty. Guevarra filed the administrative complaint.

Judge Rodriguez, however, admits to the delay in the mailing of the copies of the June 27, 2005 order and the September 5, 2005 decision and attributes the procedural lapse to the court's overloaded docket and the sudden shortage in office supplies which the court experienced at the time. To this end, Judge Rodriguez begs the indulgence of the Court.

In his Reply dated March 22, 2006, Atty. Guevarra accuses Judge Rodriguez of "backdating" the decision to make it appear that the case was decided within the reglementary period. Atty. Guevarra claims the original envelope containing a copy of the decision is postmarked "September 30, 2005," giving the impression that the decision had been prepared only on that day. The decision was received by the plaintiff on October 4, 2005.

In his Rejoinder dated May 23, 2006, Judge Rodriguez vehemently denies the accusation and reiterates his previous contention that the delay was caused by the court's overloaded docket and shortage in office supplies.

EVALUATION: Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution mandates lower court judges to decide a case within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days. Canon 6, Section 4 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, likewise, enunciates that "judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness."

The main issue in the instant administrative case is whether Judge Rodriguez failed to decide Civil Case No. 2005-104 within the reglementary period as provided for under the Constitution. Judge Rodriguez maintains that he decided the case on time while Atty. Guevarra accuses the former of antedating the decision to make it appear that the case was resolved within the prescribed period.

This Office finds merit in Judge Rodriguez's contentions.

Civil Case No. 2005-104 was submitted for decision on June 27, 2005, when Judge Rodriguez granted Atty. Guevarra's Ex Parte Motion for Summary Judgment.

Taking into account the ninety-day reglementary period, the case should have been decided on or before September 25, 2005. As per the date appearing on the decision rendered by Judge Rodriguez, Civil Case No. 2005-104 was decided on September 5, 2005 - clearly within the reglementary period.

If there was any delay incurred by Judge Rodriguez, it was in the mailing of the copy of the September 5, 2005 decision to the plaintiff. The copy of the decision was mailed only on September 30, 2005 and received by the plaintiff on October 4, 2005.

Canon 6, Section 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides that "judges shall devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court's operations."

Well-entrenched in our jurisprudence is the fact that a judge cannot use the incompetence of his staff or the court's overloaded docket to shield himself from any administrative culpability. In the case of Judge Rodriguez, however, it cannot be concluded that he had been greatly remiss in overseeing the court's operations. Judge Rodriguez, in fact, ceased to have administrative and adjudicative control over MeTC, Branch 78, on September 14, 2005, when he took his oath as the new presiding judge of RTC (Branch 6) Manila. Judge Rodriguez's transfer to another court gives credence to his claim that he had left the matter of mailing the decision in Civil Case No. 2005-104 to the branch clerk of court of MeTC, Branch 78.

Suffice it to say, while Judge Rodriguez may have failed to oversee the mailing of the copy of the September 5, 2005 decision, his actuation does not merit administrative sanction in the absence of proof that it was tainted with fraud, dishonesty and corruption.

Anent the allegation of Atty. Guevarra that Judge Rodriguez antedated the September 5, 2005 decision to make it appear that the civil case was decided on time, this Office finds the same wanting in proof. Atty. Guevarra argues that the case may have been decided only on September 30, 2005 - the receiving date stamped by the post office of Para�aque City on the envelope containing the decision. The allegation has no leg to stand on when one considers the fact that Judge Rodriguez ceased to be associated with MeTC, Branch 78, as early as September 14, 2005. If Atty. Guevarra's insinuation is to be believed, Judge Rodriguez stayed at MeTC, Branch 78, long after he had been promoted as presiding judge of RTC (Branch 6) Manila to draft the decision in Civil Case No. 2005-104.

In Zamudio v. Pe�as (286 SCRA 40), the Supreme Court enunciated that "bad faith is not presumed and he who alleges the same has the onus of proving it. Bare allegations of a complainant cannot overturn the presumption that a judge acted regularly."

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court with the recommendation that the administrative complaint filed by Atty. Atilano S. Guevarra, Jr. against Hon. Jansen R. Rodriguez, Presiding Judge of the RTC (Branch 6) Manila, be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA.

It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges falls on the complainant. [2] cralaw In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed his or her duties will prevail.

Considering that the complainant failed to substantiate his accusations, the Court resolves to DISMISS the instant complaint against Judge Jansen R. Rodriguez for lack of merit.

[if gte vml 1]> Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo , pp. 57-60.

[2] cralaw Cortes v. Agcaoili , 355 Phil. 848, 880 (1998), citing Lachica v. Flordeliza , A.M. No. MTJ-94-921, March 5, 1996, 254 SCRA 278, 284.


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