ChanRobles Virtual law Library

SECOND DIVISION

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 12 2005.

A.M OCA IPI No. 04-2029-RTJ ( Carlos R. Cruz, Jr. vs. Judge Leah D. Regala, RTC, Br. 226, Judge Ofelia A. Marquez, RTC, Br. 216, Judge Manuel R. Taro, MeTC, Br. 42 and Br. Clerk of Court Gildo Gorospe, MeTC, Br. 42, all of Quezon City. )

In his Complaint-Affidavit dated June 3, 2004, Carlos R. Cruz, Jr. charges Judge Ofelia A. Marquez with Grave Misconduct; and Judges Leah D. Regala and Manuel R. Taro with Grave Misconduct and Gross Ignorance of the Law; and Branch Clerk of Court Gildo Gorospe with Manifest Partiality relative to several cases pending before the sala of the said judges in which the complainant is a party.

Charges against Judge Ofelia A. Marquez,

RTC, Quezon City, Branch 216

The complainant avers that, during a hearing of Civil Case No. Q-96-26571 ( Carlos R. Cruz, Jr. v. Amanda Cruz and Francisco Cruz ) before the respondent judge's sala, his counsel manifested that she would file a motion for inhibition of the respondent judge. The latter allegedly answered in open court that she had never met the respondents in the said case. According to the complainant, this is an outright lie since the respondent judge had handled several other cases ¹ involving the Spouses Francisco and Amanda Cruz. He states that he tried to secure a copy of the transcript of stenographic notes of the said hearing, but the stenographer informed him that the tape had already been erased since the hearing for that day did not proceed.

The complainant also assails the respondent's order denying his motion for inhibition on the ground that the second and third pages thereof were mere photocopies. He vouches that all the pages of the said motion were original. The complainant likewise alleges that the respondent was twice absent during the scheduled hearings for his motion for reconsideration of the said order. Subsequently, the respondent granted the motion and inhibited herself, but the complainant still pursued the administrative case against her.

Charges against Judge Leah D. Regala,

RTC, Quezon City, Branch 226

The complainant is the defendant in Civil Case No. Q-97-32160 ( Amanda Cruz v. Carlos R. Cruz ), which is before the sala of the respondent judge. He assails the following rulings for being biased in favor of the plaintiff: (1) Resolution denying the complainant's motion for reconsideration of the denial of his motion to dismiss; (2) Decision resolving the case in favor of the plaintiff; and (3) Resolution denying the complainant's motion for reconsideration. The complainant avers that the respondent has further demonstrated her partiality when she issued two show cause orders in connection with the filing of his notice of appeal.

Further, the complainant alleges that, on February 12, 2003, he saw the plaintiff in the said case enter the courtroom and, later, step out of the chambers of the respondent judge. Conversely, he was refused entry even to the staff room when he went back to the court the following day to inquire whether the plaintiff submitted anything.

Charges against Judge Manuel R. Taro,

MeTC, Quezon City, Branch 42

Criminal Case Nos. 89550 ( People v. Juana Coronel ), 81625 ( People v. Ferdinand Cruz ), 87354 ( People v. Francisco Cruz ), 87355 ( People v. Ferdinand Cruz ), 87356 ( People v. Apolinario Cruz ), and 87357 ( People v. Soledad Amarille ) are pending before the respondent judge's sala. According to the complainant, the respondent judge's conduct in handling these cases mirrors his partiality towards the Spouses Francisco and Amanda Cruz.

In Criminal Case No. 81625, the respondent judge allegedly delayed the continuation of the trial of Ferdinand Cruz, son of the spouses Cruz, as best as he could, by postponing it 7 months after the scheduled hearing. In complete contrast, the arraignment of Coronel in Criminal Case No. 89550 was scheduled only 3 months later, and the respondent even issued a warrant of arrest against the said accused despite the motion for postponement seasonably filed by counsel. The complainant further alleged that, on March 20, 2003, Judge Taro "flew into a rage" and shouted things unbecoming of a judge when Coronel's counsel started manifesting for the postponement of the case.

The complainant also alleged that, in Criminal Case Nos. 87354-57, the respondent judge granted a third motion to dismiss based on forum shopping despite the fact that, in a petition for certiorari , the RTC of Quezon City and later, the CA, already settled that there was no forum shopping. He contends that the respondent's act of reversing the rulings of the RTC and the CA clearly illustrates the respondent judge's gross ignorance of the law.

Charges against Clerk of Court Gildo Gorospe

MeTC, Quezon City, Branch 42

The complainant alleged that the respondent, as Branch Clerk of Court of Judge Taro, delayed the hearing of Criminal Case No. 81625 ( People v. Ferdinand Cruz ). He later found out that the accused and the respondent attended the same law school, and are members of the same fraternity. The respondent was likewise arrogant with the complainant everytime the latter followed up his case.

In its Report dated August 22, 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the charges against Judge Marquez, Judge Regala and Gorospe were untenable. However, as to Judge Taro, the OCA found his defense, that he was not familiar with the outcome of the petition filed before the RTC of Quezon City as he was not yet appointed in the MeTC, Branch 42 at that time, to be incredible. The respondent is expected to be cognizant of all aspects of the case pending before him. Moreover, his reason that the CA ruling on the issue of forum shopping was not based on the merits but on technicalities was devoid of merit. If this were the case, the petitioner was just given a different avenue to revive the same issue and rectify the defect on technicality earlier pronounced by the CA. Also, for all intents and purposes, the parties were bound by the findings of the appellate court with regard to the facts and issues raised therein which the trial court must also respect.

Hence, the OCA submitted the following recommendations:

1.� the instant complaint against Judge Ofelia Marquez, RTC, Branch 216, Quezon City, be DISMISSED for lack of merit;

2.� the complaint against Judge Leah Regala, RTC, Branch 226, Quezon City, be DISMISSED for being unsubstantiated and for being judicial in nature;

3.� Judge Manuel Taro, MeTC, Branch 42, Quezon City be FINED in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) for Grave Misconduct; and

4.� the complaint against Clerk of Court Gildo Gorospe, MeTC, Branch 42, Quezon City, be DISMISSED for being unsubstantiated.

The recommendations of the OCA as to Judge Marquez, Judge Regala and Mr. Gorospe are well-taken. However, as to Judge Taro, we find it necessary to further conduct an investigation on the complaint against him before any action can be taken thereon.

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING , the Court Resolved the following:

(1) DISMISS the complaints against Judge Ofelia A. Marquez, RTC, Branch 216, Quezon City; Judge Leah D. Regala, RTC, Branch 226, Quezon City; and Clerk of Court Gildo Gorospe, MeTC, Branch 42, Quezon City for lack of merit; and

(2) REFER the Complaint against Judge Manuel R. Taro, MeTC, Branch 42, Quezon City to the Executive Judge of Quezon City for investigation, report and recommendation within sixty (60) days from receipt of the record.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG

Clerk of Court