ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. RTJ-01-1660. May 24, 2004 ]

OCA vs. PADERANGA

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAY 24 2004 .

A.M. No. RTJ-01-1660 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga.)

It appearing that respondent Judge Maximo G.W. Paderanga had not filed his comment on the administrative complaint for gross misconduct and gross abuse of authority filed by the Office of the Court Administrator in compliance with the Court's Decision dated January 24, 2001, the Court, in the Resolution of January 12, 2004, required respondent judge to: (a) report within five days from notice whether he has complied with the said decision and if in the affirmative, to show proof of compliance therewith; and (b) to show cause why he should not be disciplinary dealt with or held in contempt for failure to file a comment on the administrative complaint and to submit the required comment within ten days from notice.

In his Compliance and Manifestation with Motion for Clarification, respondent judge, through his counsel, Atty. Leonardo M. Arcol of Arcol and Musni Law Offices, states that he has complied with the fallo of the Decision dated January 24, 2001 by reimbursing petitioner Conchito J. Oclarit the amount of P1,000.00 as shown by the attached original copy of the remittance and acknowledgement receipt. Respondent judge also explains that he could not comply with the directive of the Court to comment on the administrative complaint because neither he nor his counsel were furnished with a copy thereof.

The Court notes from the registry return cards for the Resolution of November 21, 2001, which required respondent judge to comment on the administrative complaint for gross misconduct and gross abuse of authority filed by the Office of the Court Administrator, that copies of said resolution were received by respondent judge as well as Arcol and Musni Law Offices on an unstated date in December 2001 and December 19, 2001, respectively. The records do not show whether copies of the administrative complaint were attached to the copies of the resolutions received by them. However, even assuming that copies of the complaint were inadvertently omitted, respondent judge or his counsel should have immediately called the attention of the Court to the omission. It is only after they have received the Court's Resolution dated January 12, 2004 that they informed the Court that they have not received a copy of the complaint, thereby unduly delaying the proceedings and resolution of this administrative matter.

In view thereof, the Court Resolves to:

a) NOTE the compliance of respondent judge with the directive in the Decision dated January 24, 2001 to reimburse petitioner Conchito J. Oclarit the amount of P1,000.00;

b) DECLARE the explanation for failure to file comment on the administrative complaint NOT SATISFACTORY and to ADMONISH Judge Paderanga and Atty. Arcol to be more prudent in dealing with the Court;

c) DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court to furnish Judge Paderanga and Arcol and Musni Law Offices with copies of administrative complaint; and

d) REQUIRE Judge Paderanga to file COMMENT thereon within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from receipt hereof, with warning that upon failure to file his comment within said period, he shall be deemed to have waived his right to comment and the complaint of the Office of the Court Administrator shall be deemed submitted for resolution of the Court.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE