ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 03-1800-RTJ. October 11, 2004]

ABUEVA vs. CADIZ

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 11 2004 .

A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 03-1800-RTJ (Alfredo Abueva vs. Judge Cesar Manuel J. Cadiz, Jr., Branch 36, RTC, Dumaguete City.)

Considering the Report dated August 24, 2004 submitted by Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., to wit:

A COMPLAINT dated April 30, 2003 of Alfredo Abueva charging respondent Judge Cesar Manuel J. Cadiz, Jr., RTC, Branch 36, Dumaguete City with Violation of the Rules of Court and Code of Judicial Ethics, relative to an Application for Original Registration of Lots Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 10, PSD 07-03-003913 of the Dumaguete Cadastre, under Land Registration Case No. 2733 where complainant was the lead oppositor.

Complainant states that he was not informed by respondent when the latter conducted the hearing on March 24, 2003 in the aforementioned case. He alleges that during the said hearing, only the applicants for registration were present. He was informed of the heaving only by the other oppositors and, as a consequence, he suffered damage as his house was ordered demolished.

In his COMMENT dated 27 August 2003, respondent Judge admits that complainant was not furnished a copy of the order dated October 28, 2002 which sets the application for initial hearing but he asserts that it was due to inadvertence of the Branch Clerk of Court. He argues that even though complainant was not furnished a copy thereof, he was not unduly prejudiced by the omission because the application was eventually withdrawn.

Furthermore, respondent admits that he was the signatory in the order setting the application for initial hearing, but contends that said deficiency was cured by the general notice as contained in the order dated 28 October 2003. Respondent contends that such failure of the Branch Clerk of Court may constitute non-observance of the Rules of Procedure, but it was not used to defeat the ends of justice.

Respondent denies the allegations of complainant that he was prejudiced by the order dated October 28, 2002 which caused the demolition of his house. He claims that as per record, the Order of Demolition was not issued by him but by the City Mayor of Dumaguete City.

EVALUATION:

As gleaned from the record, it appears that on April 26, 2002 Eduardo, Elizabeth, Wilfredo, Caspar Melchor Baltazar, all surnamed Canlas, Helconida Gangoso, and Ma. Margarett C. Pachoro, by counsel, filed before Branch 36, RTC, Dumaguete Cily, presided over by respondent judge an Application for Original Registration of Lots Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 10, PSD-07-03-003913 of the Dumaguete Cadastre. Complainant filed an Opposition to Application for Original Registration claiming that he and his co-oppositors are the actual occupants and in possession of the lots subject of the application for original registration, while applicants are net

On October 28, 2002 the respondent Judge issued an order setting the initial hearing of the application for original registration on March 24, 2003. Complainant claimed that he, as lead oppositor, was not notified of the initial hearing and only the applicants were present. He was informed of the hearing only by one of the oppositors to the damage and prejudice of the oppositors whose houses were earlier demolished.

Respondent judge admitted that the complainant, as lead oppositor, was not furnished a copy of his order setting the date of the initial hearing of application on March 24, 2003, claiming that it was through the inadvertence of the Branch Clerk of Court. In trying to exculpate himself from any liability respondent judge cited Sec. 1.2.7 of the Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, which reads:

It is the duty of the Branch Clerk of Court to supervise the withdrawal of records of cases to be heard and the preparation of the notice of hearing, calendar, minutes, monthly reports of cases, inventory of cases, index of exhibits and raging (sic) of records.

The law is clear. The duty of notifying the parties resides with the Branch Clerk of Court. It is, however, incumbent upon the respondent judge to manage his court properly so that its business can easily and promptly be disposed of. Respondent has direct supervision over all the employees of the court from the Branch Clerk to its lowest aide. It is his duty, therefore, to see to it that the employees of the court must comply strictly with their duties. Command responsibility cannot be made to apply in an absolute manner because even the closest control or supervision over subordinates could not fully insure that they would not commit negligence in the performance of their duties. But, upon learning that the Branch Clerk of Court failed to furnish the complainant-oppositor a copy of the order setting the initial hearing of the application for registration it becomes incumbent upon respondent to remind the erring Branch Clerk of her failure. Because of the admitted inadvertence on the part of the Branch Clerk, complainant-oppositor was denied of his right to due process.

RECOMMENDATION:

Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint be DISMISSED for insufficiency of evidence but respondent judge should be reminded to manage the affairs of the court properly to avoid unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and prevent miscarriage of justice.

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

ACCORDINGLY, the administrative complaint against Judge Cesar Manuel J. Cadiz, Jr., Presiding Judge of RTC of Dumaguete City, Negros Oriental, Branch 36 is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. However, Judge Cesar Manuel J. Cadiz, Jr. is advised to manage the affairs of the court properly to avoid unnecessary delay in the disposition of cases and prevent miscarriage of justice.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE