ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. 10510.May 27, 2002]
RET. & A.M. NO. 01-7-199 METC
FIRST DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 27 MAY 2002.
A.M. No. 10510(Ret. and Administrative Matter No. 01-7-199 MeTC [Request of (Ret.) Judge Gregorio D. Dayrit, MeTC, Branch 35, Quezon City for the Release of His Retirement Benefits] (Consolidated per Resolution dated August 8, 2001 of the First Division.)
This refers to the letter-request dated July 2, 2001 of retired Judge Gregorio D. Dayrit (former Presiding Judge of Branch 35, Metropolitan Trial Court of Quezon City) for the early resolution of an undocketed complaint filed against him by a certain Nicandro Gautane and for the release of his retirement benefits.
In a Resolution dated July 4, 2001 ,the Court en Banc resolved to release the retirement benefits of Judge Dayrit but withheld the amount of P20,000.00 pending the outcome of the complaint against him.
In a Memorandum dated March 15, 2002 addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recommended the dismissal of the subject complaint, premised on the following facts:
Gautane originally filed his complaint with the Office of the President against the following persons: Perpetua Coloma, Oscar lnocentes, Judges Perfecto Laguio, Jr., Jose Lantin, Oscar Leviste, Gregorio Dayrit, Alberto Lerma, Enrico Lanzanas, Augustus Diaz and Sheriff Juanito Aguilar, Jr.. The Office of the President indorsed the complaint to and received by the Office, of the Court Administrator (OCA) on February 16, 1999.On even date, the complaint was forwarded to the Legal Office of the OCA. On February 17, 1999, the Legal Office in turn referred said complaint to the Docket and Clearance Division of the OCA. Subsequently, said Division reported that it could not locate the complaint despite diligent efforts exerted by it. The Legal Office requested the Office of the President for another copy of the complaint. The OCA was informed that all copies of the same were already forwarded to it. Examination of the records of all the other complaints filed by Gautane with the OCA and all those wherein Judge Dayrit is the respondent did not yield a copy of the subject complaint. In its efforts to reconstitute the said records, the OCA wrote a letter dated May 8, 2001, addressed to Gautane, requesting him to furnish said office a copy of the complaint. Gautane failed to answer the said letter or furnish the OCA a copy of such complaint. On May 20, 2001, personnel of the Legal Office went to Mr. Gautane's given address at No. 220 P. Tuazon St. Cubao, Quezon City but were unable to find him. Instead, they were able to talk to his daughter. They left with her a note reiterating their request for Gautane to furnish the OCA a copy of the subject complaint. On June 23, 2001, the same personnel of the Legal Office returned to Gautane's address but again failed to find the latter. His daughter, however, informed them that her father already received the OCA's letter dated May 8, 2001. Despite these efforts, the OCA did not receive any reply from Gautane.
On February 15, 2002, Judge Dayrit submitted an affidavit attesting to the fact that the only cases filed against him by Gautane were the case before the Ombudsman docketed as OMB-0-93-2233, entitled, "Nicandro T. Gautane versus Gregorio Dayrit and Juanito Aguilar, Jr.", and the undocketed complaint filed with the OCA. The Court Administrator opines that "there is reason to believe" that the undockoted complaint of Gautane against Judge Dayrit "arose out of the same incident" as the complaint filed with the Ombudsman by Gautane.
Based on the resolution of the Office of the Ombudsman dismissing the complaint filed by Gautane and for Gautane's failure to communicate with and furnish the OCA a copy of his missing complaint, the Court Administrator recommends the dismissal of the subject undocketed complaint and the release of the P20,000.00 to Judge Dayrit.
The dismissal of the complaint of Gautane against Judge Dayrit by the Ombudsman cannot be made a basis for the dismissal of herein subject complaint. Without the lost complaint, there is no way of determining with certainty whether the herein subject complaint arose out of the same incident or is based on the same set of facts as the complaint filed with and dismissed by the Ombudsman.
However, we find the recommendation of dismissal meritorious on ground of lack of interest on the part of Gautane to pursue his Complaint. Based on the report of the OCA, there were at least three (3) instances where the said office tried to communicate with Gautane. First, they sent him a fetter on May 8, 2001 requesting for a copy of the missing complaint. Second, OCA personnel personally went to see Gautane at his given address on May 20, 2001, failed to find him, but left a note with his daughter reiterating their request for a copy of his complaint. Third, on June 23, 2001, the OCA personnel returned to his given address but again did not find him.
Under Rule 131, Section 3(v) of the Rules of Court, in the absence of contradictory evidence, it is presumed that a letter duly directed and mailed was received in the regular course of the mail. In the matter before us, there is nothing on record to overcome the presumption that complainant Gautane received the letter of the OCA dated May 8, 2001. Moreover, the OCA personnel received information from the daughter of complainant Gautane that he had already received the said letter. No reply or any other form of communication was received by the OCA from him. Thus, we agree with the Court Administrator that Gautane's failure to communicate with the OCA as well as his failure to furnish the said office a copy of his complaint despite due notice is an indication of his failure to prosecute or of his having lost interest in pursuing said complaint. Hence, for utter lack of basis to investigate the subject complaint, this Court is constrained to dismiss the same.
Lastly, we find the unexplained loss of the complaint of Gautane as a serious cause of concern in the orderly administration of justice. First and foremost, the loss of a single document puts in jeopardy whatever interest a complainant may have in a given case Secondly, the OCA and the Court would have been spared from wasting efforts, precious time as well as resources in locating the subject complaint had due diligence been exercised by the persons responsible for the care and custody of the subject document. Thirdly, it puts into question the efficiency, dedication and integrity of the persons entrusted with the responsibility of handling said document. There is therefore a need for the Court Administrator to conduct further investigation so as to pinpoint the officials and/or employees responsible for the loss of the complaint and to enable the OCA to adopt appropriate measures to prevent the occurrence of similar incidents in the future.
WHEREFORE , the undocketed complaint against Gregorio D. Dayrit is hereby DISMISSED.
The Chief of the Fiscal Management Office, OCA is directed to release the remaining P20,000.00 of the retirement benefits to Judge Gregorio D. Dayrit.
The Court Administrator is directed to conduct an investigation to look into the cause and to determine the officials and/or employees responsible for the loss of the subject complaint and to file his report and recommendation within thirty (30) days from receipt of a copy of this Resolution.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
