ChanRobles Virtual law Library

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-88-CA-P. July 5, 2006]

ELIAS R. BORRES, et al. v. ATTY. MA. ISABEL M. PATTUGALAN-MADARANG, DIVISION CLERK OF COURT, COURT OF APPEALS, MANILA

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 5, 2006

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 05-88-CA-P (Elias R. Borres, et al. v. Atty. Ma. Isabel M. Pattugalan-Madarang, Division Clerk of Court, Court of Appeals, em>Manila .)

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

1. SINUMPAANG SALAYSAY dated August 8, 2005 of Mr. Elias R. Borres and Ms. Rebeca Andres-Marquina, charging Atty. Ma. Isabel Pattugalan-Madarang, with Bias and Partiality and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service relative to C.A.G.R. No. CV 64538, entitled "Corazon Marquena vs. Heirs of em>Regina Gutierez, et al." for Annulment of Title, etc.

Complainants are the relatives of the plaintiff-appellee, Corazon Marquena, in the above-entitled case. According to complainants, respondent was not fair in dealing with the appellee considering that the latter was not allowed extension of time within which to file her brief.

Complainants state that some of the minute resolutions of the respondent in the subject civil case were issued "without agendum". They aver that respondent concealed information from the justices such as appellee's manifestations and motions for extensions of time to file brief. They add that while the appellee was required by respondent to show proof of service of copy of her brief upon appellants, still their (appellants) clear manifestation of disregard of the Rules was ignored by the latter. Such act of respondent eventually led to the expunction of appellee's brief.

2. COMMENT dated February 20, 2006 of Atty. Ma. Isabel M. Pattugalan-Madarang. In her comment, respondent explains that the complaint stemmed from a minute resolution she issued while the case was still in its completion of records stage. She claims that pursuant to a Memorandum issued by then Presiding Justice Ma. Alicia Austria Martinez, respondent, as Division Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals, is authorized to act on certain matters without the benefit of agendum. The authority delegated to her includes, among others, the granting of extension of time to file briefs which shall not exceed 90 days for both the appellant and the appellee with warning against further extensions. On October 18, 2000 respondent granted the request of appellee's counsel for an extension of sixty (60) days to file brief, through a minute resolution. Thereafter, on January 16, 2001, the then Chief of Judicial Records Division (JRD) of the Court of Appeals, Mr. Buenaventura Miguel, required complainant's counsel, Atty. Luis Jay Formilleza III to forward to the appellate court (Court of Appeals) within five (5) days from notice the proof of receipt of the copy of the appellee's brief upon appellant.

However, on May 7, 2001 Mr. Miguel submitted a report to respondent stating that:

1. no reply has been filed as per docket book

2. no compliance (with the January 16, 2001 letter directive) has been filed as per docket book

On June 27, 2001, respondent issued a minute resolution ordering appellee's counsel to show cause within five (5) days from notice why the appellee's brief should not be expunged from the record, and the appeal be not submitted for decision without the appellee's brief for his non-compliance with the January 16, 2001 directive. On August 9, 2001, the Court of Appeals received the appellee counsel's compliance with the June 27, 2001 minute resolution.

Subsequently, on April 12, 2002 a resolution was promulgated, signed by the Hon. Delilah Vidallo[n]-Magtolis and concurred in by the Hon. Eliezer R. Delos Santos and the Hon. Juan Q. Enriquez, Jr., noting the Manifestation filed by appellee through her counsel. The said resolution further stated that in the absence of proof of completeness of service of the appellee's brief upon the appellants' counsel, the appellee through said counsel is directed to send anew within five (5) days from notice a copy of appellee's brief to the appellant's counsel and submit proof of receipt thereof as soon as possible.

As per verification report of the JRD of the Court of Appeals dated July 24, 2002, appellee's counsel did not comply with the above resolution. Eventually, the matter was reported to the Honorable ponente and the two (2) other justices through respondent's Agendum dated August 16, 2002, out of which the minute resolution dated August 29, 2002 was issued. Respondent asserts that several extensions were granted to appellee's counsel within which to file brief and to show cause why the appellee's brief should not be expunged from the record and the appeal be not submitted for decision. However, appellee's counsel did not comply with the said directive leading to the expunction of her brief. From the foregoing, respondent denies the imputation against her that she concealed some of the records of the case from the knowledge of the justices mentioned above. She asserts that the non-compliance of appellee's counsel with the directives of the court, despite due notices was the cause of the expunction of the appellee's brief from the record.

3. REPLY dated March 8, 2006. Complainant[s] impugn the authority of respondent to act on the manifestations and motions submitted by appellees. They entertain doubt on respondent's impartiality when the latter required appellee to submit proof of service of brief to the appellant. They claim that respondent committed irregularity in the counting of period within which both parties should be required to submit their respective proof of service. Lastly, complainants reiterate their previous allegations of irregularities committed by herein respondent.

EVALUATION : The instant complaint is devoid of merit.

The arguments of respondent are well taken. Settled is the rule that in administrative proceedings, the burden of substantiating the charges asseverated in the complaint, falls on the complainant. The allegations in the complaint must be proven with substantial evidence. In the absence of evidence to the contrary, the presumption that the respondent regularly performed her duties will prevail. Reliance on mere allegations, conjectures and suppositions will leave an administrative complaint with no leg to stand on. Charges based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.

In this case, the complainants failed to substantiate the charges against the respondent. The complainants failed to adduce any substantial and convincing evidence to substantiate their allegations of Bias and Partiality and Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit.

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.

It is settled that in administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of proving, by substantial evidence, the allegations in his complaint. Mere allegation is not evidence. (Aguilar v. How, 455 Phil. 237, 246 [2003])

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Atty. Ma. Isabel Pattugalan-Madarang is DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court

First Division

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE