ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[.� September 14, 2005]

OSOP vs. LUBAO

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 14 2005 .

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1931 (Abedin Limpao Osop vs. Judge Antonio C. Lubao, RTC, General Santos City , Br. 22.)

Acting on the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated March 1, 2005, to wit:

This is to comply with the resolution of the Honorable Court dated 19 January 2005 referring to this Office for evaluation, report and recommendation the letter dated 07 January 2004 of Justice Arturo D. Brion, recommending that Judge Antonio C. Lubao be suspended for a period of one (1) month for lying as to the timeliness of his rejoinder.

Upon perusal of the rollo of the instant administrative matter, it was revealed that the matter for evaluation, report and recommendation is the comment dated 03 May 2004 of Justice Brion to the letter of Judge Lubao dated 07 January 2004.

In his said comment, Justice Brion made emphasis on the statement of Judge Lubao in his Rejoinder that his rejoinder "is submitted within the (10) ten-day period required by the Honorable Justice." This false claim has triggered his (Justice Brion) recommendation to the Honorable Court, in his letter dated 16 December 2003, not to consider the rejoinder since "the respondent judge is already trifling with the processes of the Honorable Court by belatedly filing late responses."

Justice Brion further pointed out that in his telephone conversation with Judge Lubao, he informed the latter that he requested the Honorable Court for an extension of time to file his report. Hence, he told the respondent that he can wait for his submission if he (Judge Lubao) can file it within the original (7) seven-day period given to him. He added that since Judge Lubao allegedly received complainant's reply on 03 December 2003, he gave the respondent until 10 December 2003 within which to file his rejoinder. They even discussed the date Judge Lubao should deliver his submission to the air courier so that it could reach his (Justice Brion) office by 10 December 2003. This arranged extension was even confirmed in the letter dated 05 December 2003 of Justice Brion, addressed to the parties in this case, pertinent portion of which reads:

"Subsequent to the Status Report, I received the letter of respondent Judge Lubao dated December 3, 2003 (copy of which has been sent to the Supreme Court and to the complainant) explaining why he had not filed any rejoinder to complainant Osop's Reply. In a telephone conversation with the respondent Judge, I allowed him up to December 10, 2003, within which to submit his rejoinder. This period is inextendible. For the record, the extension and its terms are hereby reflected."

In the same comment submitted by Justice Brion, he made the following recommendations:

"Given these alarm bells - sounded well before the respondent judge lied about the timeliness of the filing of his rejoinder - as well as the nature of the respondent's behavior before a representative of this Honorable Court in the administrative investigation, I respectfully submit that the Honorable Court should hold the respondent judge accountable not for or in relation with the core complaints of incompetence and delay which have been laid to rest by the High Court's resolution of February 2, 2004, but for lying and trifling with the processes of this Honorable Court.

To put it bluntly, I recommend that - after considering the attendant circumstances and after satisfying the requirements of due process - the respondent Judge be penalized with a (1) one-month suspension from service, for lying to a duly designated representative of this Honorable Court (and, effectively, to this Honorable Court) on the matter of the timeliness of his rejoinder, thereby trifling with the processes of this Honorable Court in the course of the administrative investigation in caption."

In his manifestation and reply to the comment of Justice Arturo D. Brion dated 12 May 2004, Judge Lubao apologized and admitted that he committed an error when he alleged in his rejoinder that the same was filed within the (10) ten-day period required by Justice Brion. The truth of the matter is that from their telephone conversation, he was given only (7) seven days to file the same. But this he realized only upon receipt of Justice Brion's comment and after a review of the records of the instant administrative case. He attributed such error to his forgetfulness due to three (3) major surgeries which he underwent. He was operated on his prostate problem on 10 July and 11 August 2002, and had a coronary by�pass operation last 01 July 2003. Further, he stated that such error was inadvertently made or may have been caused by the fact that under the rules, a party has ten (10) days within which to submit a rejoinder.

Judge Lubao added that it was only last 18 December 2003 when he was on a land trip to Manila that he received the letter dated 05 December 2003 of Justice Brion, confirming the last day of filing his rejoinder. Hence, as of the time he mailed his rejoinder via LBC on 13 December 2003, he was still under the wrong impression that he had ten (10) days from his telephone conversation with Justice Brion (05 December 2003) within which to file his rejoinder.

Judge Lubao explained that he had no intention to mislead anybody when he alleged in [the] prefatory statement of his rejoinder that it was filed within the ten (10) day period required by Justice Brion. Nonetheless, assuming that he was not under the wrong impression that he had ten (10) days within which to submit his rejoinder, he could not have complied with the verbal directive primarily because he was quite occupied with the morning and afternoon sessions in his court.

While it may be true that Judge Lubao committed an error in stating that the filing of his rejoinder was made within the period required by Justice Brion, we find it rather harsh to suspend him for a period of one month for allegedly trifling with the processes of the Honorable Court.

As aptly pointed out by Justice Brion, and as confirmed in his letter dated 16 December 2003, Judge Lubao was given only a period of seven (7) days and not ten (10) days from the date of their telephone conversation within which to submit his rejoinder. However, considering that Judge Lubao submitted the required rejoinder and incurred a delay of only three (3) days, it is enough that he be reprimanded. Besides, in his explanation dated 07 January 2004, Judge Lubao even admitted having committed said error and apologized for his mistake. Additionally, inasmuch as Judge Lubao himself admitted his forgetfulness and attributed the same to his three (3) major operations, and considering further his health conditions, he should be reminded and advised to maintain a systematic recording of matters which require his immediate attention.

Viewed from all the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that:

1. The instant case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;

2. Judge Antonio C. Lubao be REPRIMANDED for the late filing of his rejoinder and for having committed a mistake in stating that the same was filed within the period required of him, with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future will be dealt with more severely.

3. Judge Lubao be ADVISED to maintain a systematic recording of matters, which require his immediate attention.

Justice Brion was required to submit his comment on Judge Lubao's Manifestation dated May 12, 2004, where he reiterated his recommendation that Judge Lubao be meted the penalty of one month's suspension, and added that "it would be a mistake to disregard the respondent Judge's outright lie and trifling with the processes of this Honorable Court simply because he has apologized."

The recommendations of the OCA are well-taken. The Court notes that Judge Lubao has already admitted his mistake and apologized to Justice Brion. Moreover, Judge Lubao's inadvertence with respect to the timeliness of the filing of his rejoinder is not of such odiousness as to warrant the penalty of one-month suspension.

The Court Resolves to REPRIMAND Judge Antonio C. Lubao for the late filing of his rejoinder and for having committed a mistake in stating that the same was filed with the period required of him. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Judge Lubao is further ADVISED to maintain a systematic recording of matters which require his immediate attention.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE