SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365. August 9, 2001]
CESINA EBALLA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ESTRELLITA M.
PAAS, Branch Clerk of Court PEDRO C. DOCTOLERO, and Interpreter II EVELYN
DEPALOBOS, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 44, Pasay City, respondents.
D E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This is a complaint filed against
Judge Estrellita M. Paas, Branch Clerk of Court Pedro C. Doctolero, and
Interpreter II Evelyn Depalobos, all of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch
44, Pasay City. Complainant is accused
of trespass to dwelling and malicious mischief in Criminal Cases Nos. 99-1447
and 99-1448, now pending before the court of respondent judge.
In her complaint, Eballa charges
Judge Paas with ignorance of the law for having cited her in contempt and
ordered her detention for three hours on June 1, 1999. Complainant also cites the failure of Judge
Paas to issue a formal order in connection with complainant’s motion for
reduction of bail and for a re-raffle of the cases.
Complainant charges respondents
Pedro C. Doctolero and Evelyn Depalobos with discourtesy. She claims that on June 1, 1999, the date
set for her arraignment, she saw Doctolero to inquire about the time of the
hearing and asked if she could absent herself from the same as she had a motion
for reinvestigation which still had to be resolved. According to complainant, Doctolero replied in a brusque manner, “Wala
akong pakialam, basta bumalik ka mamaya.” (“I don’t care if you have a pending motion, but you have to
return later for the hearing.”) Doctolero then allegedly told complainant that
her motion for reduction of bail had been denied. Complainant said she was surprised to know this because she had
not received any order from the court to that effect.
Complainant alleges that she
requested Judge Paas for postponement of the hearing when her cases were called
for arraignment because her counsel was absent and she had a motion for
reinvestigation which had yet to be resolved.
Disregarding complainant’s plea, Judge Paas allegedly directed Depalobos
to read the informations over complainant’s objections. According to complainant, Depalobos read the
informations in a very loud voice with the intent of humiliating her as it was
heard by everyone in the courtroom.
Depalobos then asked complainant if the charges were true, and the latter
answered in the negative. Complainant
said she refused to sign the certificate of arraignment even when she was told
that a plea of not guilty would be entered in her behalf since she denied the
charges against her. She said that the
people in the courtroom laughed when she told Depalobos, ”E, basa ka nang
basa.” (“You insisted on reading the charges.”) For this reason,
Judge Paas cited complainant for contempt and ordered her incarcerated.[1]
Respondent Judge Paas’ version is
as follows: As complainant was not
represented by a lawyer during her arraignment, Judge Paas appointed Atty.
Reynaldo Ticyado of the Public Attorney’s Office complainant’s counsel de
oficio. According to Judge Paas,
complainant insisted that she had a pending motion for reinvestigation, but the
records of the case did not show there was one filed. Thus, Judge Paas proceeded with the arraignment and directed
Depalobos to read the informations to complainant. The latter then said in a loud voice, “Hindi! Hindi totoo iyan!” (“No! That’s not true!”) Because of complainant’s answer, Judge Paas
said she ordered a plea of not guilty to be entered in the record. When asked to sign the certificate of
arraignment, however, complainant said again in a loud voice, “Hindi ako
pipirma diyan!” (“I won’t sign
that!”) Complainant was also making
faces in open court which caused embarrassment on the part of Judge Paas
because those in the courtroom laughed.
Public Prosecutor Bernabe Augustus Solis thus moved to cite complainant
in contempt. Because of complainant’s
disrespectful remarks and misbehavior in court, Judge Paas said she granted the
prosecutor’s motion and ordered complainant to be detained for three
hours. Judge Paas submitted an
affidavit of Depalobos and the comment of Public Prosecutor Solis corroborating
her allegations.[2]
On the other hand, Branch Clerk of
Court Pedro C. Doctolero stated that in the morning of June 1, 1999,
complainant came to court and asked if her arraignment and pre-trial in
Criminal Case Nos. 99-1447 and 99-1448 would proceed as scheduled considering
that she had posted her cash bond on May 4, 1999 and had filed a motion for
reinvestigation. Doctolero said he told
her, “Sandali lang po at kukunin ko ang records.” (“If you would please
excuse me, I will get the records.”)
Doctolero said that as he found no motion for reinvestigation filed in
the case, he told complainant politely, “Tuloy po ang arraignment ninyo at
bumalik kayo mamayang ala-una y media dahil kayo po ay personal na notified sa
inyong arraignment.” (“Your arraignment will proceed as scheduled and you
have to return at 1:30 p.m. because you were personally notified
thereof.”) In fact, according to
Doctolero, complainant thanked him and said she would come back.
Doctolero admitted that
complainant did not receive a copy of the order denying her motion for
reduction of bail bond. He claimed,
however, that complainant was personally informed of the denial of her motion
as noted on the upper hand corner of the motion.[3]
Doctolero annexed to his comment a
certification that complainant had not filed any motion for reinvestigation
before either Branch 44 or Branch 46 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Pasay
City, the supporting affidavits of Atty. Ticyado and court staff members
Elizabeth Gomez-Reyes and Marites G. Baybay, and a copy of complainant’s motion
for reduction of bond showing Judge Paas’ notation at the upper left hand
corner, denying complainant’s motion.
For her part, Depalobos confirmed
that on June 1, 1999, at 1:30 p.m., complainant manifested before the court
that she had filed a motion for reinvestigation although not in the court but
with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay City. The court denied complainant’s request for postponement and
ordered Depalobos to read the informations.
According to Depalobos, complainant was considered to have entered a
plea of not guilty as she denied the allegations against her, but she refused
to sign the certificate of arraignment.
Depalobos explained that she only
did what Judge Paas had told her to do, namely, read the charges to complainant
without any intention to humiliate the latter.
Depalobos said she read aloud the informations because complainant told
her that she had difficulty hearing.
Depalobos attached to her comment the corroborating affidavits of Bien
Camba, the court stenographer on duty on June 1, 1999, and Atty. Ticyado.[4]
In its report, dated May 2, 2001,
the Office of the Court Administrator finds the complaint to be without
merit. In its opinion, complainant’s
remedy is not to file an administrative case against Judge Paas but to seek
judicial redress under the Rules of Court.
It states that Judge Paas correctly proceeded with the arraignment of
complainant considering that the latter did not file a motion for reinvestigation
in court, but, as it turned out, in the Office of the City Prosecutor. Judge Paas wanted to avoid delay and could
not be blamed for appointing a counsel de oficio for complainant when
her counsel failed to appear at the arraignment.
Contrary to complainant’s
allegation, Judge Paas issued an order, dated July 16, 1999, denying her motion
for re-raffle, a copy of which was received by complainant on August 4, 1999
per the registry return card.
However, the OCA finds Judge Paas
remiss in failing to issue an order denying complainant’s motion for reduction
of bail, making only a marginal note of her action.
With respect to the charges of
discourtesy against respondents Doctolero and Depalobos, the OCA notes that
complainant presented no evidence to sustain the charges. In contrast, respondents submitted evidence
in support of their defense.
In view of the foregoing, the OCA
recommends that the charges of ignorance of the law against Judge Paas and of
discourtesy against Doctolero and Depalobos be dismissed for lack of
merit. However it recommends that Judge
Paas be reprimanded for failure to comply with the formal requirements of the
Rules of Court respecting the issuance of a formal written order on the motions
filed before her sala.
We find the recommendations of the
OCA to be well taken.
First. As shown by
the records of this case, complainant filed her motion for reinvestigation not
with respondents’ court but with the Office of the City Prosecutor of Pasay
City on May 6, 1999. At that time, the
MeTC of Pasay City already had acquired jurisdiction over the cases considering
the informations for trespass to dwelling and malicious mischief had earlier
been filed on April 8, 1999. The rule
is settled that upon the filing of a complaint or information in court,
jurisdiction over the case is already vested with the trial court and the
disposition of the case rests upon its sound discretion.[5] Accordingly, complainant should have filed her motion
for reinvestigation with the court rather than with the city prosecutor’s
office.[6] Judge Paas cannot be faulted for proceeding with
complainant’s arraignment.
Second. Complainant
cannot claim violation of her right to have counsel of her own choice. Her counsel failed to appear despite due
notice to her, and, therefore, respondent Judge was justified in appointing a
counsel de oficio to assist her during her arraignment.
Third. Nor can Judge
Paas be administratively held liable for citing complainant in contempt and
ordering her detention. Complainant
refused to sign the certificate of arraignment and declared her refusal to do
so in a loud voice while at the same time making faces, to the great
embarrasment of the court. At any rate,
if she thought she had been cited in contempt without cause, her remedy was to
file a petition for certiorari in accordance with Rule 71, §2 of the 1997 Rules
of Civil Procedure, which provides:
Remedy therefrom. ¾ The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of the petition, provided such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him.
Fourth. Nor is there
any basis for sustaining complainant’s allegations of discourtesy against
respondents Doctolero and Depalobos.
Complainant presented no evidence to support her allegations. On the other hand, Doctolero and Depalobos
attached affidavits corroborating their respective defenses. Moreover, complainant did not deny
Depalobos’ claim that the latter had to read the informations aloud because
complainant said she was hard of hearing.
Fifth. With respect
to complainant’s claim that Judge Paas failed to issue the necessary orders
disposing of her motions for reduction of bail and for the re-raffle of the
case, it was shown that the motion for re-raffle was denied in an order dated
July 16, 1999 and complainant received a copy of the order on August 4, 1999.
However, the record shows that
Judge Paas did not actually issue a formal order disposing of the motion for
reduction of bail, but only noted her action denying the motion on the margin
thereof. Respondent judge’s order
should at least have been quoted in a notice signed by the clerk of court and a
copy of the notice should have been served on complainant. As it is, complainant learned of the denial
of her motion when she went to the court to inquire about the status of her
cases.
The practice of some lower court
judges of merely noting their orders either granting or denying motions on the
margin of the motions is inconsistent with the purpose of R.A. No. 6031,
effective August 4, 1969, to make inferior courts also courts of record. The proceeding of said courts should now be
recorded in a formal manner. There is
all the more reason for insisting on this requirements in the case at bar
because respondent judge was resolving a motion for reduction of bail, which is
a fundamental right of the accused in criminal cases. Respondent judge should explain the reason for the denial of
complainant’s motion, instead of simply noting her action on the margin of such
motion.
WHEREFORE, the complaint of Cesinia Eballa for ignorance of the
law against Judge Estrellita M. Paas and for discourtesy against Branch Clerk
of Court Pedro C. Doctolero and Interpreter II Evelyn Depalobos, of the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 44, Pasay City, is hereby DISMISSED for lack
of merit. However, Judge Paas is hereby
REPRIMANDED for inefficiency in failing to issue a formal written order denying
complainant’s motion for reduction of bail.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Quisumbing, Buena, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.