ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1878. September 5, 2006]

RE: CHITO B. PACAO v. JUDGE JOSE G. DY, ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BRANCH 41, DAET, CAMARINES NORTE

En Banc

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEPT. 5, 2006

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1878 (Re: Chito B. Pacao v. Judge Jose G. Dy, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 41, Daet, Camarines Norte)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

This administrative case arose from a letter-complaint dated 30 January 2004 filed by Chito B. Pacao ("complainant"), Acting Branch Clerk of Court of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Daet, Camarines Norte, Branch 41 ("Branch 41"), against Branch 41 Acting Presiding Judge Jose G. Dy ("respondent Judge"). Complainant charged respondent Judge with (1) conduct unbecoming a judge and (2) violation of Rules 2.01, [1] cralaw 3.03, [2] cralaw and 3.04 [3] cralaw of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Complainant prayed for the recall of respondent Judge to his official station at the RTC, Legazpi City, Branch 7.

Complainant alleged that respondent Judge was often criticized for his "crude, vulgar, petulant, [and] arrogant" attitude, earning the tag "Judge Kurahaw" (for kurahaw , or "shouting," in the Bicolano dialect) because he was known to shout frequently at his staff and at other court employees. Complainant, as clerk of court, together with the stenographer and sheriff, experienced humiliation whenever respondent Judge scolded them loudly during court sessions. The criminal docket clerk was often interrogated or blamed, also in open court, if even "light errors" were committed in the sending of court notices.

Complainant attached the respective requests [4] cralaw of the Camarines Norte chapters of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and the Philippine Association of Court Employees (PACE) addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), requesting for the immediate relief of respondent Judge as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 41 due to his improper conduct.

Complainant alleged that respondent Judge often refused to abide by the results of the raffle of cases, instructing his staff not to receive the records of the cases assigned to them. [5] cralaw Attached to the complaint was an Indorsement dated 10 September 2003 ("10 September 2003 Indorsement"), forwarding the records of 11 cases to Branch 41 but with a note that complainant refused to received them "as per instructions by Judge Dy." [6] cralaw Complainant also cited an instance when respondent Judge verbally instructed him prior to a raffle on 28 January 2004 to manifest before the Raffle Committee that Branch 41 would accept only 10 criminal cases. Only nine cases were raffled to Branch 41, thus complainant did not expect the events that followed:

[Complainant] reported to his [H]onor in the morning of January 29, 2004 considering that his [H]onor was on leave in the afternoon of January 28, 2004 or during the scheduled time of raffle. Without giving [complainant] a chance to fully explain the result of the raffle or by mere[ly] looking into the list of cases for raffle, his [H]onor in a loud voice ke[pt] on blaming the undersigned for failure to follow instructions. The undersigned was so shocked. Dala ng inis, galit, pagkalito, pagkatuliro na datapwat sa kanyang pagpupunyagi na sundin ang lahat ng bilin sa kanya , the undersigned turned his back to his [H]onor. The undersigned feels that his [H]onor has no more confidence [in] him. x x x x [7] cralaw

Attached to the complaint was a note from respondent Judge dated 29 January 2004, ordering complainant not to have certain cases docketed in Branch 41. [8] cralaw

Complainant further accused respondent Judge of leaving the office earlier than the prescribed official time. Complainant submitted certified true copies of the RTC guards' logbooks showing respondent Judge leaving the courthouse at 4:00 p.m. or earlier on certain days in August and September 2004. [9] cralaw

Other staff members of Branch 41 executed a letter of support for the complaint, stating that respondent Judge "create[d] no harmonious condition inside the office as [the staff] commonly experience[d] fear due to his presence and [his] treatment [of them]." [10] cralaw These staff members also requested that respondent Judge be recalled to his permanent station at Legazpi City, Branch 7.

In his Comment dated 19 April 2004, respondent Judge expressed doubt as to complainant's motives, based on the fact that the complaint was received at the office of Deputy Court Administrator Jose Perez only on 20 February 2004, or 21 days after its notarization on 30 January 2004. As of the latter date, there was no "compelling reason or incident of substantial consequence" for complainant to file charges against him. Rather, respondent Judge suggested that he earned complainant's ire when he revoked complainant's designation as Acting Branch Clerk of Court. On 11 February 2004, complainant had written respondent Judge a letter asking to be relieved from the duty of attending the the raffle of cases because he could not be "punctilious" in following respondent Judge's instructions. [11] cralaw The next day, respondent Judge answered complainant in a letter ("12 February 2004 letter") explaining that since the duty of attending the raffle accompanied the designation of Branch Clerk of Court, respondent Judge was revoking complainant's designation as such, including its corresponding Representation and Transportation Allowance (RATA) of P5,000. [12] cralaw

On his alleged refusal to accept cases raffled to his sala, respondent Judge explained that the matter was not complainant's concern as it had already been addressed and was pending before the OCA. [13] cralaw

Respondent Judge asserted that he religiously attended to his duties in court. Respondent Judge advanced his 12 years of experience as a public prosecutor and his five years of service in the judiciary as proof that "[d]ealing with people and staff [wa]s not new to him." [14] cralaw Respondent Judge admitted that he scolded court personnel but reasoned that these incidents took place all in a day's work, teaching the affected personnel "not to repeat the basic omissions and/or inadvertence, while [making] them more attentive to their job x x x." [15] cralaw

On the other hand, respondent Judge accused complainant of being out of the office during office hours, on the pretext of doing research work, when in truth he was loafing at a nearby mall. [16] cralaw

In his Reply, [17] cralaw complainant denied that he filed the complaint in retaliation for the loss of his designation as Acting Branch Clerk of Court. After the argument between him and respondent Judge on 29 January 2004, complainant immediately decided to file a leave of absence and write his complaint. There was no truth to respondent Judge's charge that complainant did not attend court sessions and failed to observe office hours. Complainant always tended to his duties of doing research and preparing the calendar of cases and minutes in the morning, while attending court sessions in the afternoon.

Upon the recommendation of the OCA, [18] cralaw we resolved on 20 September 2004 to docket the complaint as a regular administrative matter and to refer the case to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Arcangelita Romilla-Lontok ("Investigating Justice Lontok") for investigation, report and recommendation. [19] cralaw

Meanwhile, on 9 February 2005, this Court issued Administrative Order No. 17-2005 revoking the designation of respondent Judge as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 41 and directing him to return to his original station at Legazpi City, Branch 7. [20] cralaw

On 8 February 2006, Investigating Justice Lontok submitted her Report and Recommendation ("Report'') with the finding that respondent Judge "acted short of the high expectations demanded of his position." Investigating Justice Lontok recommended that respondent Judge "be admonished to behave with more exacting propriety at all times in the performance of his duties and the day-to-day conduct of his life and warned that similar use of inappropriate language and display of any discourtesy or arrogance in the future shall be dealt with more severely." [21] cralaw

We agree with the findings of Investigating Justice Lontok. However, we find the recommended penalty too light, upon a finding that respondent Judge also violated Court directives and circulars.

We note the contradiction between respondent Judge's Comment, which states that "there was no compelling reason or incident of substantial consequence that transpired on or about January 30, 2004," and his 12 February 2004 letter telling complainant that:

x x x it was you yourself who, as early as January 29, 2004, or a day after the raffle on January 28, 2004, upon being asked why you failed to follow instructions from the undersigned, informed the undersigned that henceforth you will not attend any raffle of cases, you turned your back on him, dared him inside his chamber x x x x. You left the office and never returned for the rest of the week; without any leave of absence filed or notice sent. x x x (Emphasis supplied)

This confirms complainant's version of the events that led to his filing of the complaint. Complainant reported the results of the raffle to respondent Judge on 29 January 2004, who became displeased because complainant had "failed to follow instructions." Surprisingly, respondent Judge did not care to explain to the Court what particular instructions were violated, and even attempted to mislead the Court by claiming that no incident of any sort had transpired between them "on or about January 30, 2004."

At any rate, respondent Judge does not deny that he instructed complainant to refuse the docketing of some cases already raffled to Branch 41. Indeed, respondent Judge's handwritten note to complainant is unequivocal in its language. Respondent only reasons that "he had to see the cases first and at the time [he] wrote the note, he was still preoccupied with other work." [22] cralaw

Respondent should know the procedure in the raffle of cases as clearly outlined in Section 4, Chapter V of Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02-SC. [23] cralaw No case may be assigned without being raffled, and no judge may choose the cases assigned to him. After the raffle, the Clerk of Court shall immediately distribute the case records to the respective branches. [24] cralaw Once a case is raffled and assigned to a branch, the judge must accept it unless he voluntarily inhibits or is disqualified from hearing the case. [25] cralaw In such a situation, the records shall be returned to the Executive Judge in order that the case may be included in the next regular raffle for reassignment. [26] cralaw

Obviously, the raffle procedure is designed to ensure that cases are randomly and equitably distributed among the courts. The rules for the conduct of the raffle are intended to safeguard the impartial adjudication of cases and to obviate public suspicion regarding assignment of cases to predetermined judges. [27] cralaw

In this case, respondent Judge failed to fully explain why he needed to see the case records before accepting them for docketing, or, as in the 10 September 2003 Indorsement, why he instructed his clerk of court to refuse to accept the records of cases raffled to his branch. Respondent Judge provided only the vague explanation that the matter was not complainant's concern as it had already been addressed. Under what circumstances, he failed to elaborate. The questionable acts of respondent Judge reveals lack of knowledge of basic court procedures.

We find respondent Judge equally liable for failing to render the required eight hours of service per working day as shown in the court logbook. Administrative Circular No. 3-99 provides that:

I. The session hours of all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts shall be from 8:30 A.M. to noon and from 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M., from Monday to Friday. The hours in the morning shall be devoted to the conduct of trial, while the hours in the afternoon shall be utilized for (1) the conduct of pre-trial conferences; (2) writing of decisions, resolutions, or orders; or (3) the continuation of trial on the merits, whenever rendered necessary, as may be required by the Rules of Court, statutes, or circulars in specified cases.

x x x x

Under this circular, judges are required to observe the prescribed schedule for session hours. Furthermore, judges are required as public officers to render eight hours of service every working day, fully utilizing the time to perform their judicial tasks and dispose of the court's business promptly. [28] cralaw The congested dockets of the courts require no less.

As for respondent Judge's accusation of loafing against complainant, we find this unsupported by any evidence.

Finally, we find respondent Judge liable for violating Rules 3.03 and 3.04 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, thus:

Rule 3.03. - A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum in the court.

Rule 3.04. - A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for the litigants.

If respondent Judge found his staff's performance or work skills unsatisfactory, he need not have resorted to scolding or berating them in full view of the public. As Investigating Justice Lontok correctly pointed out, Rule 3.10 of the Code of Judicial Conduct (now Section 3, Canon 2 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct) allows a judge to take appropriate disciplinary measures against erring lawyers or court employees. [29] cralaw Resort to intemperate language only detracts from the image of composure and judiciousness that should characterize a member of the bench. [30] cralaw

We emphasize the need for judges to abide by Court directives intended to promote the orderly administration of justice. Judges should administer their office with due regard to the integrity of the legal processes, remembering that they are not depositories of arbitrary power, but under the sanction of law. [31] cralaw

WHEREFORE, we FINE Judge Jose G. Dy, Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Daet, Camarines Norte, Branch 41, Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000) for conduct unbecoming a judge and for violation of Supreme Court Administrative Matter No. 03-8-02 and Circular No. 63-2001. We STERNLY WARN him that a repetition of same or similar acts in the future shall merit a more severe sanction.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rule 2.01.-A judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.

[2] cralaw Rule 3.03.-A judge shall maintain order and proper decorum in the court.

[3] cralaw Rule 3.04.-A judge should be patient, attentive, and courteous to lawyers, especially the inexperienced, to litigants, witnesses, and others appearing before the court. A judge should avoid unconsciously falling into the attitude of mind that the litigants are made for the courts, instead of the courts for litigants.

[4] cralaw Rollo , pp. 171-174.

[5] cralaw Id. at 5.

[6] cralaw Id. at 16. Annex "C" of Complaint.

[7] cralaw Id. at 83. Annex "C" of Reply.

[8] cralaw Id. at 17. Annex "C-1" of Complaint. The note briefly states:

Chito:

Pls. don't have these cases docketed yet in B-41.

Thanks.

[Sgd.

Judge Jose G. Dy]

[9] cralaw Id. at 183-194. Logbook of RTC security guards reflecting times of departure by respondent Judge.

[10] cralaw Id. at 176. Letter to Court Administrator (now Supreme Court Associate Justice) Presbitero Velasco, Jr. dated 2 February 2004 from Efren Abonita, Sheriff IV; Cesar Abogado, Process Server; Gloria Auro, Interpreter III; Rosa Mangilinan, Stenographer III; Gavina Delos Reyes, Stenographer III; and Ireneo Miguel Abonita, Utility Worker.

[11] cralaw Id. at 53.

[12] cralaw Id. at 40, 46-47.

[13] cralaw Id. at 40.

[14] cralaw Id. at 43.

[15] cralaw Id. at 39.

[16] cralaw Id. at 41.

[17] cralaw Id. at 77. Complainant's Reply dated 13 August 2004.

[18] cralaw Id. at 71-76. OCA Report dated 15 July 2004.

[19] cralaw Id. at 100.

[20] cralaw Id. at 167. Issued by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr.

[21] cralaw Report, p. 9.

[22] cralaw Id. at 36. Respondent's Comment.

[23] cralaw Guidelines on the Selection and Appointment of Executive Judges and Defining their Powers, Prerogatives and Duties, promulgated on 15 February 2004.

[24] cralaw Section 4 provides as follows:

x x x x

(c) Listing of cases.-The cut-off period for the inclusion of cases in the list shall be twelve o'clock noon of the day of their filing to allow sufficient time for the preparation of a complete raffle list for posting and distribution of copies to all judges before the raffle. The Clerk of Court shall furnish each judge in the court with a copy of the raffle list at least thirty (30) minutes before the scheduled raffle.

x x x x

(d) Conduct of the raffle.--The raffle shall be undertaken with the use of a roulette or a bingo tambiolo , if the former is not available, in open court in the presence of lawyers and the public. The raffle shall be conducted at the lawyers' table, by the Executive Judge personally and with the attendance of the members of the Raffle Committee. Under no circumstance shall any raffle be made in chambers.

The members of the Raffle Committee shall each confirm in open court the branch to which a case is raffled before the next draw is made.

x x x x

(h) Immediate distribution of records of raffled cases.-After the raffle, the Clerk of Court shall immediately distribute the case records to the branches to which the cases have been raffled.

[25] cralaw Section 8 provides as follows:

SEC. 8. Raffle and re-assignment of cases in ordinary courts where judge is disqualified or voluntarily inhibits himself/herself from hearing case.-(a) Where a judge in a multiple-branch court is disqualified or voluntarily inhibits himself/herself, the records shall be returned to the Executive Judge and the latter shall cause the inclusion of the said case in the next regular raffle for re-assignment. x x x x

[26] cralaw Id.

[27] cralaw Fineza v. Rivera, 455 Phil. 798 (2003), citing Santos v. Buenaventura, 419 Phil. 363 (2001).

[28] cralaw Concerned Employees of the RTC of Dagupan City v. Falloran-AIiposa , 384 Phil. 168 (2000), citing Medina v. de Guia , A.M. No. RTJ-88-216, 1 March 1993, 219 SCRA 153.

[29] cralaw The provision states:

SEC. 3. Judges should take or initiate appropriate disciplinary measures against lawyers or court personnel for unprofessional conduct of which the judge may have become aware.

[30] cralaw Section 6, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct states:

SEC. 6. Judges shall maintain order and decorum in all proceedings before the court and be patient, dignified and courteous in relation to litigants, witnesses, lawyers and others with whom the judge deals in an official capacity. Judges shall require similar conduct of legal representatives, court staff and others subject to their influence, direction or control.

[31] cralaw Hilario v. Ocampo III, 422 Phil. 593 (2001), citing Conducto v. Monzon , 353 Phil. 796 (1998).


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