ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. MTJ-02-1448. September 22, 2004]

JOSON vs. ORTIZ

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 22 2004 .

A.M. No. MTJ-O2-1448 (Formerly OCA-IPI-O1-1136-MTJ) (Attys. Jose B. Joson and Anthony L. Po vs. Judge Belen B. Ortiz.)

This treats of the Motion, for Reconsideration dated June 2, 2004 filed by respondent, Judge Belen B. Ortiz, imploring the Court to reconsider its Decision dated March 25, 2004 which imposed upon, her the penalty of fine in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) for violation of Canons 3.08 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The Decision dated March 25, 2004 is principally anchored upon the Court's findings that the cancellation of the preliminary conference set by Judge Ortiz "for the last time" on November 15, 2000 was unjustified; Judge Ortiz should have ensured that her Order dated December 6, 2000 was sent out to the parties immediately after it was issued; and that she failed to comply with the reglementary period for deciding cases covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.

In her Motion for Reconsideration, respondent argues that the cancellation of the preliminary conference which she set on November 15, 2000 was due to the "immovable and urgent nature of the meeting called by the MCJAP's ^[1] cralaw directorship." ^[2] cralaw She reasons that the Order given in open court on December 6, 2000 was actually finalized and signed on December 13, 2000 , after which, she instructed the Clerk of Court of Branch 53 to immediately dispatch the Order to the parties. Judge Ortiz insists that she had no reason to suspect that the Branch Clerk of Court will not perform his assigned, responsibility. She further contends that her duty to resolve the case begins only upon the timely service of the Order upon the parties and notice to her by the Branch Clerk of Court that the case is submitted for resolution. Thus, it is unfair for the Court to declare her remiss in her duty to resolve the case within the reglementary period, because the Branch Clerk of Court's delay in serving copies of the Order upon the parties and failure to inform, her of the status of the case are matters which are beyond her control. Judge Ortiz further insists that the unnecessary delay in the disposition of the case could have easily been avoided had the complainants themselves followed up the matter with the Branch Clerk of Court.

We are not entirely convinced that Judge Ortiz should be absolved of all liability. It is her explicit duty under the Code of Judicial Conduct to discharge administrative responsibilities, facilitate the performance of administrative functions by court personnel and ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of court business. Accordingly, she should have coupled her reliance on the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 53 with proper supervision to ensure that her instructions were indeed carried out. After all, she is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of official functions. She cannot take refuge behind, the supposed mistakes or inefficiency of the Branch Clerk of Court.

Her failure to ensure that the Order was immediately served upon the parties no doubt triggered a chain reaction resulting in the delay in the rendition of judgment contrary to the intent of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. As we held in the Decision, "the date of receipt by the parties of the said Order is crucial since it is from there that the 10-day period for submission of position papers is reckoned. The date of filing of position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing them, is in turn crucial in determining the 30-day period within which the court ought to render judgment." ^[3] cralaw

Be that as it may, the Court is disposed as a measure of compassion to consider as mitigating circumstances Judge Ortiz's work load as Executive Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Caloocan City, Presiding Judge of Branch 49 and Pairing Judge of Branches 50 and 53, and the fact that this is her first offense, accordingly modify the penalty imposed upon her. ^[4] cralaw

WHEREFORE, the Motion for Reconsideration dated June 2, 2004 is GRANTED in part. The Decision dated March 25, 2004 is modified particularly with regard to the fine of Two Thousand Pesos (P2,000.00) which we hereby eliminate and set aside. The respondent is REPRIMANDED for violation of Rules 3.08 and 3.09, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, with a warning that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

^[1] cralaw Municipal and City Judges Association of the Philippines.

^[2] cralaw Motion for Reconsideration dated June 2, 2004, p. 3.

^[3] cralaw Decision dated March 25, 2004, pp. 11-12.

^[4] cralaw Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Delia H. Panganiban, 343 Phil. 276 (1997); and Judge Emerito M. Agcaoili v. Judge Jose O. Ramos, 311 Phil. 238 (1995).

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011