ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2015-RTJ. October 11, 2004]

ANIBAN vs. CRUZ

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

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

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2015-RTJ - (Benjamin Z. Aniban vs. Judge Rosario C. Cruz, Presiding Judge, Branch 173, RTC-Manila.)

Considering the Report of the Court Administrator dated August 18, 2004, to wit:

1.�������� VERIFIED COMPLAINT (with annexes) of Benjamin Aniban dated 31 May 2004, charging Judge Rosario C. Cruz with Undue Delay in Rendition of Judgment relative to Civil Case No. 01-101132 entitled "Benjamin Z. Aniban vs. Salvacion Redillas, Vergel T. Jose and Revelina Medrano" for Declaration of Nullity of Transfer Certificate of Title with Damages.

Complainant, who is the plaintiff in the above stated civil case avers that on 11 June 2002, an Order was issued by the respondent Judge, who was then acting as a Pairing Judge of RTC-Branch 55, decretal portion of which states:

It appears from the record of this case that counsel for the plaintiff-movant was duly notified of today's hearing. As prayed for, the Motion to Declare Defendant Salvacion Redillas filed by the said party is now submitted for resolution.

Complainant claims that almost two (2) years have elapsed from the issuance of the said order up to the present time, but still no decision has been rendered which violates the ninety (90) day period prescribed by law to render a decision. Hence, he is asking that the much delayed decision be rendered by the respondent Judge.

2.�������� COMMENT dated 08 July 2004 of Judge Rosario C. Cruz pursuant to the 1st Indorsement Letter issued by this Office on 16 May 2004.

Respondent Judge stressed that it is the basic tenet in our judicial system that cases are decided by the judge who tried the case while he or she is still incumbent. Contrary to complainant's allegation, respondent is not duty bound to decide said civil case. First, she did not try the case; second, the case was not assigned to her for decision; and third, the case is not yet ripe for decision.

To better understand her position, respondent judge gave a chronological sequence of events relative to the above civil case.

As a backgrounder, respondent Judge admits that as Pairing Judge, she issued the assailed Order dated 11 June 2002, declaring the subject incident submitted for resolution.

On 23 September 2002, the incident was resolved by Judge Liwag, ratiocinating that:

"Considering that up to this time, no valid service of summons has been made upon the defendant Salvacion Redillas as appearing on file, the Motion to declare her in default is absolutely premature, and must perforce be, as it is hereby DENIED.

Note that what was published by the plaintiff in the People's Taliba was a copy of the Sheriff's return dated February 22, 2002 attesting the fact that the summons was "unserved " upon such defendant. The publication of such return does not constitute service of summons under existing laws and jurisprudence." (italics supplied)

The above resolution of Judge Liwag was also assailed by herein complainant in an undated Motion to Recall Order filed on 12 October 2002, copy furnished the Office of the Court Administrator and the respondent Judge. Thereupon, various letter complaints against Judge Liwag addressed to Deputy Court Administrator Christopher Lock were successively initiated by the complainant which triggered the inhibition of the former on 22 January 2003.

As the case was re-raffled to RTC-Branch 42 presided by Judge Guillermo Purganan, complainant's motion to recall order was DENIED in an Order dated 24 February 2003, which set the pre-trial of the case on 24 April 2003 .

On 02 April 2003, complainant's counsel, Atty. Rodrigo Marinas filed a Manifestation insisting that as defendant Redillas was duly served with summons thru co-defendant Vergel Jose, and that the Motion to Recall Order dated 11 June 2002 must be resolved.

On 30 April 2003, complainant filed another Motion for Early Resolution of the Motion to Recall Order dated 11 June 2002, which the Court ruled as moot and academic in its Order of 06 May 2003. Another undated letter purporting to be a motion was filed by the complainant requiring Deputy Sheriff Soriano of RTC-Branch 55 to correct the Sheriffs Return dated 22 February 2002 in order to make it conform to the valid pertinent rules on service of summons and praying for an early resolution of the Motion to declare defendant Redillas in default.

On 20 May 2003, complainant's counsel filed an Explanation/Manifestation stating that, by analogy, respondent judge had already terminated pre-trial. It was complainant's notion that the clarificatory hearing conducted by respondent judge on 25 April 2002 in order to be apprised of the nature of the case as a pairing judge of Branch 55 was already a pre-trial conference as required by the Rules of Court.

The issue was laid to rest in the Order of Judge Purganan on 27 May 2003, wherein it was clarified that neither Judge Liwag nor respondent judge terminated the pre-trial. Subsequently, in an Order dated 29 May 2003, Judge Purganan ruled that complainant's motion to cite defendant in default had been mooted by the orders of 23 September 2002, 24 February 2003 and 06 May 2003.

Complainant and his counsel continued to file various pleadings reiterating their cause, foremost of which was the letter/complaint dated 26 June 2003 addressed to the Office of the President of the Philippines entitled "A Classic Example of a Hoodlum in Robe - Justice Delayed is Justice Denied," copy furnished the Supreme Court, Presidential Anti-Graft Commission, the Ombudsman, Department of Justice, Media, Heirs of Judge Liwag and RTC-Branch 42. This prompted Judge Purganan to issue an Order dated 07 July 2003 voluntarily inhibiting himself from further hearing the case.

The case was re-raffled to RTC-Branch 19 presided by Judge Zenaida R. Daguna who, in an Order dated 06 August 2003, set the case for pre-trial on 11 September 2003. However, on 11 August 2003, Judge Daguna issued an Order returning the records of the case to the Office of the Executive Judge for transfer to respondent's sala, who, according to the complainant should be the one to hear the case. It has been noted in said order that complainant and his counsel argued and confronted Judge Daguna over her orders as well as those of her predecessors.

As an offshoot of the above incidents, Executive Judge Enrico A. Lanzanas issued an Order dated 12 August 2003 transferring the case to herein respondent.

On 25 August 2003, another copy of letter/complaint was received by respondent, assailing the perceived unjust orders and re-raffling of the case.

In order to avoid the perception that a complainant is given unrestricted freedom to choose the court where his complaint may be filed and tried, and in order to erase any cloud of doubt that the same is impelled by some ulterior motive, respondent judge issued an Order on 23 December 2003, forwarding the records of said civil case to the Office of the Executive Judge to be subjected to the usual procedure of assigning of cases.

Henceforth, the case was reassigned to RTC-Branch 33 presided by Judge Reynaldo D. Ros, who likewise issued an order for pre-trial. On 27 April 2004, the latter dismissed the case pursuant to Section 5, Rule 18 of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure for failure of plaintiff and his counsel to appear before the court. This prompted the complainant to file another letter/complaint on 03 June 2004, which the Clerk of Court of Branch 33 accordingly replied to.

All told, respondent judge emphasizes that in view of all the foregoing, it is clear that Civil Case No. 01-101132 which the complainant wants her to decide was not yet ripe for decision when the same was under her consideration. The various complaints filed by the complainant against aforementioned RTC judges constitute pure and simple harassment.

Likewise, respondent judge wishes to direct the attention of this Office that some brothers in the legal profession do not observe the lawyer's bounden duty to give proper advice and explain correctly the law and the rules of procedure which intricacies, some clients do not fully understand.

3.�������� Complainant's REPLY to respondent's comment dated 22 July 2004 .

Complainant asserts that there was a pre-trial conference held in the sala of respondent judge on 25 April 2002. Attached to his reply are photocopies of the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) consisting of nine (9) pages, taken during the hearing.

OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION : It appears from the records of the Office of the Court Administrator that complainant also filed the following administrative cases relative to the same civil case:

1.�������� against late Judge Hermogenes Liwag, RTC-Br. 55, OCA IPI No. 02-1637-RTJ, for knowingly rendering unjust judgment, case DISMISSED on 15 January 2003;

2.�������� against late Judge Hermogenes Liwag, RTC-Br. 55, OCA IPI No. 04-2004-RTJ, for dishonesty, case CANCELLED on 17 June 2003 (respondent died on 16 June 2003);

3.�������� against Judge Guillermo Purganan, RTC-Br. 42, OCA IPI No. 04-1994-RTJ, for ignorance of the law, case DISMISSED 28 June 2004;

4.�������� against Judge Guillermo Purganan, RTC-Br. 42, OCA IPI No. 04-2004, for dishonesty, PENDING;

5.�������� against Sheriff Eugenio S. Soriano, RTC-Br. 55, OCA IPI No. 04-1931-P, for misconduct and misfeasance, PENDING.

EVALUATION : Respondent Judge is charged with Undue Delay in Rendition of Judgment relative to Civil Case No. 01-101132. Complainant, in his various motions filed in the different branches of the Regional Trial Court of Manila, has repeatedly assailed the Order of the respondent judge dated 11 June 2002.

After a careful scrutiny of all the documents on file, we find that there is nothing in the record that could pinpoint culpability and will merit sanction against respondent judge. The Motion to Declare Principal Defendant Salvacion Redillas in Default has-long been resolved by the Order of the late Judge Hermogenes Liwag dated 23 September 2002. Moreover, the Motion to Recall such Order has also been denied in an Order dated 24 February 2003 of Judge Guillermo Purganan. Another Order dated 06 May 2003 of Judge Purganan decisively discussed the merits of the contentions of the complainant. Inasmuch as the issue has been resolved, it is procedurally correct to proceed with the usual course of conducting the trial of the case, unto which complainant could not comprehend.

Short of being repetitive, the gravamen of complainant's legal embattlement is the failure to effect service of summons to defendant Redillas. The publication of the Sheriff's Return in People's Taliba dated 20 April 2002 is not an effective substituted service of summons sanctioned by the Rules of Court. Section 14, Rule 14 (instead of Section 15, as stated in the Order dated 24 February 2003) of the Revised Rules on Civil Procedure explicitly states:

Sec. 14. Service upon defendant whose identity or whereabouts are unknown - In any action where the defendant is designated as an unknown owner, or the like, or whenever his whereabouts are unknown and cannot be ascertained by diligent inquiry, service may, by leave of court, be effected upon him by publication in a newspaper of general circulation and in such places and for such time as the court may order.

The aforequoted provision requires the publication of the alias summons itself with prior approval of court and not the sheriffs return. None of these have been made by herein complainant.

There is no doubt that complainant was motivated by what he felt was an affront to his right by raising the same issue in his various motions, but respect must also be accorded to the rulings of the court which were promulgated after a judicious appreciation of the facts presented.

"For it is a general principle of the highest importance to the proper administration of justice that a judicial officer in exercising the authority vested in him, shall be free to act upon his own convictions, without apprehension of personal consequences to himself. Liability to answer to everyone who might feel himself aggrieved by the action of the judge would be inconsistent with the possession of this freedom, and would destroy the independence without which no judiciary can be either respectable or useful." (Bradley vs. Fisher, 80 U.S. 335 cited in In Re: Joaquin T. Borromeo, 21 February 1995)

It has been held that judges are allowed a reasonable latitude for the operation of his individual view of the case, his appreciation of facts and his understanding of the applicable law on the matter. If any error was committed, it was error of judgment for which a judge may not be held administratively liable in the absence of any showing of bad faith, malice or corrupt purpose. (Dela Cruz vs. em>Concepcion , 235 SCRA 597, 607)

Verily, the persistent and patent disregard of the complainant of the Orders mentioned was the cause of his legal predicament, which respondent judge has nothing to do with. Perusal of the records reveals that complainant himself is filing several motions at his instance. It is said that a little learning is a dangerous thing; and that he who acts as his own lawyer has a fool for a client. There would seem to be more than a grain of truth in these aphorisms, and they appear to find validation in this particular case.

Although there is a rule that we should be the last to deter or discourage parties who harbor what they feel to be a legitimate sense of grievance against a judge's actuation from taking steps the law confers to assure observance of the high standard expected of men in the judiciary, this is not absolute. There is also a need to observe measures to protect members of the judiciary from baseless and unfounded administrative complaints as embodied in A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC. Considering that a judge's reputation for probity is highly valued, and in many instances, his most precious possession, complainant should ponder well and seriously before filing charges.

It is on this notion that there is a need to call attention of the complainant in this particular case to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing an utterly baseless administrative complaint.

RECOMMENDATION : Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court are our recommendations that:

1.�������� the instant administrative Complaint be DISMISSED for lack of merit;

2.�������� the complainant be DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE why he should not be held in Contempt of Court for filing an utterly baseless and unfounded administrative case.

The Court agrees with the Office of the Court Administrator's recommendation.

Pursuant to Circular No. 19-98 dated February 18, 1998, respondent judge, as the pairing judge of RTC, Branch 55, Manila, had the authority to act not only on incidental or interlocutory matters and those urgent matters requiring immediate action on cases pertaining to the paired court, but also on all other matters therein. Thus, whenever a vacancy occurs by reason of resignation, dismissal, suspension, retirement, death, or prolonged absence of the presiding judge in a multi-sala station, the judge of the paired court shall take cognizance of all the cases thereat as acting judge therein until the appointment and assumption to duty of the regular judge or the designation of an acting presiding judge or the return of the regular incumbent judge, or until further orders from the Court.

Respondent, therefore, acted within her authority in issuing the assailed order, and since the regular judge of RTC of Manila, Branch 55, Judge Liwag, had apparently assumed his duties again, it was already the duty of said regular judge to resolve herein complainant's motion to declare defendant Redillas in default, which the regular judge did in his Order dated September 23, 2002.

Verily, under the factual circumstances of this case, respondent judge committed no impropriety whatsoever, because upon assumption of duty of the regular judge of the court to which subject case was originally assigned, respondent's responsibility to act on any matter in said case ceased. Moreover, a disposition of subject case has indeed been made on April 27, 2004, when the presiding judge of RTC Manila, Branch 33, issued an order dismissing the case for failure of plaintiff (herein complainant) and his counsel to appear at the pre- trial hearing.

Evidently, the complaint against respondent is absolutely baseless. The Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon court employees and magistrates, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from unfounded suits that serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly administration of justice. [1] cralaw Thus, the Court issued A.M. No. 03-10-01-SC which provides in part, as follows:

1.�������� If upon an informal preliminary inquiry by the Office of the Court Administrator, an administrative complaint against any Justice of the Court of Appeals or Sandiganbayan or any Judge of the lower courts filed in connection with a case in court is shown to be clearly unfounded and baseless and intended to harass the respondent, such a finding should be included in the report and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. If the recommendation is approved or affirmed by the Court, the complainant may be required to show cause why he should not be held in contempt of court. If the complainant is a lawyer, he may further be required to show cause why he or she should not be administratively sanctioned as a member of the Bar and as an officer of the court.

In view of the all the foregoing, and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with law and the facts on record, the Court hereby approves and adopts the same. The administrative complaint against Judge Rosario C. Cruz is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit. Complainant Benjamin Z. Aniban is hereby DIRECTED to SHOW CAUSE within ten (10) days from receipt hereof why he should not be held in contempt of court for filing an utterly baseless and unfounded administrative case.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

By:

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Asst. Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Mercado vs. Ya-Chua, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1517, December 8, 2003.


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