SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1557. April 25, 2002]
ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, complainant, vs. JUDGE LEOCADIO
H. RAMOS, JR., Regional Trial Court of Burauen, Leyte, Branch 15, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
DE
LEON, JR., J.:
Before us is an
administrative complaint against Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr., former acting
presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Tacloban City, Branch 8,
and Atty. Irene T. Pontejos-Cordeta, clerk of court of said branch. The complainant, Atty. Leticia E. Ala, is
counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No. 95-02-16, entitled “Atty.
Federico N. Triste v. Testate Estate of Spouses Francisco S. Apostol and
Eugenia Yerro-Apostol,” an action for attorney’s fees pending before Branch
8.
Atty. Ala alleges that
when Judge Ramos was assigned to Branch 8 the pending incidents were:
(a) plaintiff’s Second Motion
for Reconsideration of the Order dated May 22, 1998[1] which declared him non-suited;
(b) defendant’s Manifestation and Motion dated June 6, 1997 which sought to cite plaintiff and the City Assessor of Tacloban City for contempt of court; and
(c) defendant’s Omnibus
Motion dated May 8, 1998 which, among others, sought to reduce the P300,000.00
bond posted in favor of plaintiff.
On December 8, 1998,
Judge Ramos issued an order declaring all pending incidents submitted for
resolution. However, up to the time he
was re-assigned to the RTC of Manila, Branch 38, in April/May 1999, said
pending incidents remained unresolved.
Atty. Ala further
complains that during the incumbency of Judge Ramos, the records of the case
disappeared. She makes reference to her
letter dated September 6, 1999[2] to Judge Ramos,
requesting the return of the records to Branch 8 in view of a scheduled hearing
the following week. She recounted therein
that Judge Ramos twice told her that the records were with him.[3] Atty. Ala ended by
warning Judge Ramos that if the records were not located before the next
hearing, she would be constrained to bring the matter to the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA). Atty. Ala
states that up to the date she filed the instant administrative complaint,
Judge Ramos has not replied to the aforesaid letter.
As for Atty. Cordeta,
Atty. Ala narrates that in June 1999, plaintiff filed a Motion to Set Case for
Hearing. Atty. Cordeta, however, failed
to include the setting prayed for in the court’s calendar. Then on July 30, 1999, Atty. Ala made her
appearance in connection with plaintiff’s second Motion to Set Case for
Hearing. Having traveled all the way
from Manila, she fumed when nobody could explain why the case was not included
in the court’s calendar. It was then
10:30 a.m. and Atty. Cordeta had not yet reported for work.
Upon the initiative of
Atty. Cordeta, Atty. Ala was later summoned to the chambers of Executive Judge
Frisco T. Lilagan. Plaintiff was
likewise present, supposedly to attend the hearing of his motion. Atty. Ala contends that it was on this
occasion that the records of Civil Case No. 95-02-16 were found to be missing[4] and Executive
Judge Lilagan was first apprised of the motions which Atty. Cordeta did not
include in the court’s calendar. Atty.
Ala maintains that neither were the parties nor their counsels notified of the
missing records and/or the hearing dates for plaintiff’s motions if the court
was not inclined to hear them on the dates requested.
In his Comment,[5] Judge Ramos admits
that plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration was submitted for resolution
on December 8, 1998. He, however,
failed to resolve the same because he was assigned to hear a criminal case in
Basey, Samar, another case in Oras, Eastern Samar, and later designated as
acting judge of the RTC of Manila, Branch 38.
Judge Ramos asserts that he left the records of Civil Case No. 95-02-16
with Branch 8, and that he had no hand in its loss.
For her part, Atty.
Cordeta explains[6] that on June 2, 1999, plaintiff filed a Motion to
Set Case For Hearing. The notice of
hearing stated that it shall be submitted for the court’s appropriate action on
June 14, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. The motion
was not included in the court’s calendar for said date since Executive Judge
Lilagan, who was designated as acting presiding judge of Branch 8, only started
hearing the cases of said branch on June 21, 1999. In fact, on June 14, 1999,[7] neither Atty. Ala
nor plaintiff made their appearances, indicating that they knew that there was
no scheduled hearing for that day.
On July 19, 1999,
plaintiff filed another Motion to Set Case for Hearing, praying that his Motion
for Reconsideration of the order declaring him non-suited be set for hearing
and argument on July 30, 1999. The
notice of hearing stated that the motion shall be submitted for the court’s
appropriate action on July 22, 1999 at 8:30 a.m. This second Motion to Set Case for Hearing was not included in
the court’s calendar for July 22, 1999 as date requested fell on a Thursday,
which was not a motion day. According
to Atty. Cordeta, Executive Judge Lilagan instructed her that cases assigned to
Branch 8 shall be heard on Mondays and Tuesdays, those from his permanent
station in Branch 34 shall be on Wednesdays and Thursdays while motions from
both branches shall be on Fridays. Atty. Cordeta asserts that both counsels
were informed of this schedule such that plaintiff and Atty. Ala did not make
their appearances on July 22, 1999.
Instead, Atty. Ala appeared on July 30, 1999 when neither she nor
plaintiff filed any motion or pleading which was set for hearing on that date. Records will show that no notices of hearing
for July 30, 1999 were sent to the parties and their counsel. Neither did the court issue any order
granting plaintiff’s prayer in his second Motion to Set Case for Hearing that
his Motion for Reconsideration be heard on July 30, 1999. Atty. Cordeta opined that Atty. Ala should
not assume that all motions shall be automatically granted, or that they shall
be heard on the dates requested since the hearing of cases is always subject to
the availability of the judge and the court’s calendar.
Atty. Cordeta also points
out that on July 29, 1999, Atty. Ala sent Atty. Edna Maceda, clerk of court of
Branch 6, to inquire from Branch 8 whether plaintiff’s motion[8] was included in
the calendar for the next day. The
court interpreter, Ms. Aurorita Bangoy, explained that it was not included in
the calendar because the date stated in the notice of hearing was July 22,
1999, which was a Thursday. As such,
plaintiff’s request that his second Motion for Reconsideration be heard on July
30, 1999 was not granted.[9]
Atty. Cordeta denies that
she had not yet reported for work by 10:30 a.m. She contends that she arrived at 9:00 a.m., and that shortly
afterwards, Atty. Ala, accompanied by Atty. Tarcelo Sabarre, Jr., came barging
into the office demanding an explanation why the motion of plaintiff was not
included in the calendar. Ms. Bangoy
vainly tried to explain but instead of listening, Atty. Ala allegedly
threatened everyone with an administrative complaint and ordered everyone to
reimburse her traveling expenses. To
substantiate her claim, Atty. Cordeta attached the affidavits of Ms. Bangoy and
the staff of Branch 8.[10]
With respect to the
allegation that she did not send notices regarding the “missing” case records,
Atty. Cordeta explains that since April 1999, Atty. Ala knew that they were in
the custody and physical possession of Judge Ramos, who took them from the
office without her knowledge. This is
evident from Atty. Ala’s letter dated September 6, 1999. The records were only declared missing on
September 27, 1999 when counsels were allowed to reconstitute them in open
court.[11] For Atty. Cordeta,
to send out a notice, even when not required by the rules, would have been
superfluous and unnecessary.
Atty. Ala counters the
statements of Atty. Cordeta.[12] She asserts that
when a court is not predisposed to hear a motion on the date requested, written
notices to this effect must be sent to all parties. Atty. Cordeta, however, failed to issue such a notice. Atty. Ala claims that she was only informed
of the hearing on July 30, 1999 through Atty. Maceda, stressing that notice of
a hearing’s cancellation should not by mere word of mouth. She further explains that she did not make
her appearance on July 14, 1999 because she had moved to dispense with it, and
as for the hearing on July 22, 1999, Atty. Maceda informed her of the same by
phone.[13] Despite the
absence of any formal notice therefor, she nonetheless attended the hearing on
July 30, 1999 because she “wanted a stop to the court’s inefficiency.”[14]
Atty. Ala also refutes
the claim of Atty. Cordeta that on July 30, 1999 she was already at the court
by 10:30 a.m. She states that she
walked in at 10:30 a.m., Atty. Sabarre was already in the staff room together
with only three (3) members of the staff. She discounts the credibility of the
affidavits submitted by Atty. Cordeta for being self-serving and merely
executed at her behest.
Atty. Ala likewise
maintains that Atty. Cordeta should have immediately gathered the records of
the case when plaintiff filed his Motion to Set Case for Hearing on June 2,
1999, which were followed by other motions filed by plaintiff and herself. These motions should have alarmed Atty.
Cordeta and led her to report the matter to Executive Judge Lilagan. Even assuming that Judge Ramos took the
records of the case without her knowledge and consent, Atty. Cordeta should
have been detected this as early as June 1999.
She also should have inventoried the records when Judge Ramos left
Branch 8 considering that as official custodian thereof, missing records would
be her responsibility.
Upon the endorsement of
the OCA, this case was referred to one of its consultants for investigation,
report and recommendation. In the
meantime, however, Atty. Cordeta filed a Manifestation[15] with the OCA that
the records of Civil Case No. 95-02-16 were deemed reconstituted on December
14, 1999.[16] Moreover, in an
Order dated August 7, 2000,[17] Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo finally disposed of the
case, rendering judgment in favor of the defendant. Atty. Cordeta added that plaintiff’s appeal was already being
processed for transmittal to the Court of Appeals. To this Manifestation, Atty. Ala filed a Vehement Opposition[18] but also prayed
that the instant administrative complaint be decided with dispatch.
In a Memorandum dated May
18, 2001, Retired Justice Conrado M. Molina reported:
On the loss of the records of Civil Case No. 95-02-16, substantial evidence points to the respondent Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. as the one responsible. Respondent Cordeta stated that the respondent Judge took the records of the subject civil case from the office without her permission as was the Judge’s practice of bringing records to his residence during weekends for decision-writing. In fact on August 27, 1999, even before the filing of this administrative complaint, she had written the respondent Judge in Branch 38, RTC, Manila to remind him about the records of the case which he had in his possession.
“x x x Since June 1999 when we conducted our semestral physical inventory of cases, we have been verbally requesting that said record be returned to this court. Instead of returning the said record, you instructed us to look for it in your chambers in Branch 15, Burauen, Leyte and in your house at V & O Subdivision, Tacloban City. After searching for it at least three (3) times in both places, the same proved fruitless.” (Annex “C” to Manifestation, p. 127, Id.)
The complainant herself had also written to the respondent judge on September 6, 1999 about the missing records.
“It must be recalled that you told me twice (2 times) that the records were with you in your house, i.e., (a) you called me up at the Leyte Park Hotel before the Holy Week to inform me that the court records were in you house in Tacloban after could not be found in your office that day, and (b) you called me up again in my office in Manila on July 22, 1999 xxx to tell me once again that you still had the case records with you even as you apologized for not resolving it in your time.” (p. 5, Id.)
The letter was delivered to and received in the office of Judge Ramos, Jr. at Branch 38, RTC, Manila on the same date, September 6, 1999. (p. 6, Id.) He did not respond to both letters. His reaction came belatedly when he was asked by the Office of the Court Administrator to comment on the complaint and only by way of a cursory denial of the imputation.
“d) on the alleged loss of the records of civil case no. 95-02-16, the undersigned had no hand at all. The records were left with RTC, Branch 8, Tacloban City.” (p. 65, Id.)
Obviously, such perfunctory disavowal of responsibility for the loss cannot prevail over the positive assertions of the complainant and the respondent Branch Clerk of Court.
As to the complaint against the respondent branch clerk of court on her failure to schedule the hearing of the two (2) motions filed by plaintiff, the respondent acted within the bounds of her authority. Calendaring of cases is subject to the availability of the presiding judge and the court’s calendar. The first motion filed on June 2, 1999 specified in the Notice of hearing that it would be submitted for action of the court on June 14, 1999. The respondent did not place the motion in the calendar for that day, and rightly so, since Branch 8 of RTC Tacloban City had no presiding judge yet. Respondent Judge Ramos, Jr. who used to preside over Branch 8 had been reassigned in Samar and Judge Frisco Lilagan of Branch 34, RTC, Tacloban City, started hearing the cases of Branch 8 only on June 21, 1999. Moreover, the records of the case were already missing and the complainant knew about it. In any event the parties were not inconvenienced by the omission as neither the plaintiff-movant nor the complainant appeared, knowing, presumably, that there was no scheduled hearings on that day.
The second motion filed on July 19, 1999 prayed that the case be set for hearing on July 30, 1999. The Notice of hearing requested the Clerk of Court to submit it for the action of the court on July 22, 1999. Again, the respondent did not put it on the court calendar because that day, July 22, 1999, was a Thursday, a non-motion day for Branch 8 and a trial day for Branch 34 of Judge Lilagan. Although the movant and the complainant came to court on July 30, 1999 only to find that the case was not in the court calendar their appearance was not entirely fruitless for they were able to discuss the case with Judge Lilagan in the chambers at the initiative of respondent Cordeta.
In fine, it is submitted that the respondent violated no rule or regulation for which she may be held administratively liable.
Justice
Molina recommended that Judge Ramos be fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00)
for losing the records of Civil Case No. 95-02-16, and the complaint against
Atty. Cordeta be dismissed for lack of merit.
The findings of Justice
Molina as to the liability of Judge Ramos for the missing case records are well
taken. In her letter dated September 6,
1999,[19] Atty. Ala recounted that Judge Ramos told her before
Holy Week and again on July 22, 1999 that he still had possession of the case records. In the affidavit of Ms. Bangoy dated
September 17, 1999,[20] she stated, among others, that on July 29, 1999 she
had informed Atty. Maceda that said case records were still in the custody and
possession of Judge Ramos. Also, in a
letter dated August 27, 1999 addressed to Judge Ramos,[21] Atty. Cordeta requested the return of the case
records at the soonest possible time.[22] This letter was replete with details when Judge
Ramos took the records, the previous requests for its return, and the searches
conducted at his chambers in Burauen, Leyte and at his house in Tacloban City
all of which both proved fruitless. It
appears from the foregoing that Judge Ramos was the person who was last in
possession of the records of Civil Case No. 95-02-16, and that even after his
re-assignment to Manila, he failed to turn them over to the court resulting in
their apparent loss. To the mind of
this Court, such lack of circumspection by Judge Ramos renders him liable for
simple misconduct.
In Re: Report on
the Judicial Audit, RTC Brs. 4 and 23, Manila,[23] we reiterated the proscription in Section 14, Rule
136 of the Rules of Court that “[n]o record shall be taken from the clerk’s
office without an order of the court except as otherwise provided by [the]
rules.” We also stressed therein that Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code
punishes any public officer who removes, conceals or destroys documents or
papers officially entrusted to him.
With such heavy responsibilities, judges are therefore expected to
exercise utmost diligence and care in handling the records of cases.
While Justice Molina made
no finding on the matter, it has not escaped our attention that Judge Ramos
should also be held accountable for failing to resolve plaintiff’s Second
Motion for Reconsideration of the Order dated May 22, 1998 for an unreasonable
period of time. Said motion was
submitted for resolution on December 8, 1998 but even after more than five (5)
months, or until his re-assignment to the RTC of Manila, Branch 38, pursuant to
Administrative Order No 4-99 dated May 14, 1999, it remained unresolved. We
note from the Order dated August 7, 2000 of Judge Apurillo that plaintiff’s
Second Motion for Reconsideration was only denied on May 15, 2000.[24]
We also find need to
point out that although Atty. Ala alleges that defendant’s Manifestation and
Motion dated June 7, 1997 as well as its Omnibus Motion dated May 8, 1998 were
also left unresolved by Judge Ramos, no evidence has been presented in support
of the allegation. The case chronology[25] prepared and submitted by Atty. Ala, and more
specifically the proceedings subsequent to December 8, 1998, do not refer to
the two (2) motions of defendant. Even
the Comment of Judge Ramos is silent about the matter, admitting only that he
failed to resolve plaintiff’s Second Motion for Reconsideration. Accordingly, we are constrained to limit the
liability of Judge Ramos for failing to resolve that Second Motion for
Reconsideration.
We nonetheless reiterate
that judges should dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases
within the prescribed reglementary period.
That a judge had been given additional work as acting presiding judge in
other courts, as in the case of Judge Ramos, cannot justify his failure to
resolve any pending incident. In Casia
v. Gestopa,[26] we already held a similar contention as
unmeritorious. We even reminded
respondent judge therein that:
xxx if his caseload prevented the
disposition of cases within the reglementary period, all he had to do was ask
from this Court for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the cases
involved. The Court, cognizant of the
caseload of judges and mindful of the difficulty encountered by them in the
reasonable disposition of cases, would almost always grant the request.[27]
As to the penalty to be imposed
upon respondent Judge Ramos, this Court cannot totally adopt the recommendation
of Justice Molina. On September 11,
2001, we promulgated Administrative Matter No. 01-8-10-SC, amending Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court on the discipline of justices and judges by classifying the
offenses committed by them and
prescribing a scale of penalties therefor.
Under the amended rule, simple misconduct and undue delay in resolving
the pending incidents in Civil Case No. 95-02-16 are both classified as less
serious charges.[28] If found guilty of a less serious charge, the
penalty prescribed is suspension from office, without salary and other
benefits, for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months, or a
fine of more than Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) but not exceeding
Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).[29] Considering that respondent Judge Ramos is liable
for two (2) less serious offenses but also considering that he has already
compulsorily retired from the judiciary, a fine in the amount of Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00) would be
sufficient and reasonable.
In the case of Atty.
Cordeta, the Court agrees with investigating Justice Molina of OCA that the
charges against her should be dismissed.
The Motion to Set Case for Hearing filed on June 2, 1999[30] was submitted for appropriate action by the trial
court on June 14, 1999 at 8:30 a.m.
As of that date, no judge had yet been assigned to preside over Branch 8
on account of the re-assignment of respondent Judge Ramos to Manila. Executive
Judge Lilagan only began to assume the post of acting presiding judge of Branch
8 on June 21, 1999,[31] or seven (7) after the date requested by plaintiff
for hearing his motion. Atty. Cordeta
cannot, therefore, be expected to calendar a motion on a specific date when no judge
has yet assumed presiding in Branch 8 where such a motion was pending.
With respect to the
Motion to Set Case for Hearing filed on July 19, 1999,[32] the notice of
hearing specified therein that the same was submitted for appropriate action by
the trial court on July 22, 1999 at 8:30 a.m., not July 30, 1999. An examination of the said motion shows that
July 30, 1999 was the date requested by plaintiff-movant for the hearing of his
Motion for Reconsideration of the
Order dated May 22, 1998 in the
event the court should favorably act on his Motion to Set Case for Hearing.[33] This is evident
from the fact that plaintiff’s request for a hearing on July 30, 1999 for his
Motion for Reconsideration was stated in the prayer of the Motion to Set Case
for Hearing and not in the notice of hearing of the Motion for
Reconsideration. The Rules of Civil
Procedure provide that:
SEC. 4. Hearing of Motion. – Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
SEC. 5. Notice of Hearing. – The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
SEC. 6. Proof of Service Necessary – No written motion set for hearing shall be acted upon by the court without proof of service thereof.
In
the case at bar, plaintiff did not send any notice of hearing for July 30,
1999. It also does not appear that
plaintiff’s Motion to Set Case for Hearing was acted upon, considering that it
was submitted for appropriate action by the trial court on a Thursday, which
was not a motion day. Hence, there was
no reason for Atty. Cordeta to include that motion pertaining to Civil Case No.
95-02-16 in the court calendar for July 30, 1999.
As for Atty. Ala, she
should not have assumed that there would be a hearing on July 30, 1999
especially when she was not even served any notice to that effect. Atty. Ala even gives conflicting accounts as
to the purpose of her appearance in court on said date. In her
Letter-Complaint, she asserts that she had gone to Tacloban City to attend the
hearing of plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration. In her Reply, however, she later states that her purpose was to
put an end to the inefficiency of the court.
Be that as it may, any inconvenience that Atty. Ala may have
experienced, as a consequence of attending a hearing that did not exist in the
first place, is attributable to her alone.
Atty. Ala also faulted
Atty. Cordeta for failing to notify the parties that the records of Civil Case
No. 95-02-16 were missing. Atty.
Cordeta became aware that the records of the case were still with respondent Judge
Ramos in June 1999 following the conduct of a semi-annual inventory of the
cases assigned to Branch 8. Immediately
thereafter, Atty. Cordeta made several verbal requests to Judge Ramos for the
return of the said records of the case.
At that point, to declare that the records of the case were “missing”
would have been drastic. Moreover, no
practical purpose would be served by notifying Atty. Ala of their whereabouts
since up until July 22, 1999, she knew that they were with respondent Judge
Ramos, having been told of the same by Judge Ramos himself.
Prudence dictates that
whenever the records of a case are misplaced or lost, the clerk of court should
promptly inform the presiding judge of such fact to enable him to take such
steps as may be necessary under the circumstances. In this case, it cannot really be determined when Atty. Cordeta
apprised Executive Judge Lilagan that the records of Civil Case No. 95-02-16
were still in the custody of Judge Ramos, that efforts were exerted to recover
them, and that such efforts yielded negative results. Atty. Ala insists that Executive Judge Lilagan first learned that
the records of the case were missing on July 30, 1999, a month after taking
over Branch 8 of RTC, Tacloban City.
Apart from this bare assertion, however, no other evidence has been
adduced to substantiate the claim. Consequently, we cannot rely on it as basis
for holding Atty. Cordeta administratively liable.
WHEREFORE, the Court resolves to FINE Judge Leocadio
H. Ramos, Jr. in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), to be
deducted from his retirement pay, for losing the case records of
Civil Case No. 95-02-16 and thereby unduly delaying the resolution of the
pending incidents in the said case.
The complaint against
Atty. Irene T. Pontejos-Cordeta is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo, (Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and Corona, JJ., concur.
[1] Issued by Judge
Mateo Leanda, predecessor of Judge Ramos.
[2] Annex “A” of the
Letter-Complaint, Rollo, pp. 5-6.
[3] The pertinent portion of the letter stated:
It must be
recalled that you told me twice (2 times) that the records were with you in
your house, i.e., (a) you called me up at the Leyte Park Hotel before the Holy
Week to inform me that the records were in your house in Tacloban after it
could not be found in your office that same day, and (b) you called me up again
in my office in Manila on 22 July 22 1999 [the day you told me that Atty. Alday
of our law firm was helping you out in pushing your appointment papers in
Malacañang] to tell me once again that you still had the case records with you
even as you apologized for not resolving it in your time.
[4] Atty. Ala, however,
quickly adds that Judge Lilagan had already ordered the reconstitution of the
case records.
[5] Rollo, p. 65.
[6] Rollo, pp.
47-50.
[7] Erroneously stated
as July 14, 1999 in the Comment of Atty. Cordeta.
[8] While not specified,
Atty. Cordeta was apparently referring to plaintiff’s Second Motion for
Reconsideration of the Order dated May 22, 1998.
[9] Annex “F” of the
Comment of Atty. Cordeta, Rollo, p. 59.
[10] Annexes “F” and “G”
of the Comment of Atty. Cordeta, Rollo, pp. 59-61.
[11] Annex “H” of the
Comment of Atty. Cordeta, Rollo, p. 62.
[12] Rollo, pp.
66-71.
[13] It is not clear from
Atty. Ala’s statement what information regarding the hearing on July 30, 1999
had been relayed to her by Atty. Maceda.
[14] Rollo, p. p.
67.
[15] Rollo, pp.
119-121.
[16] Annex “A” of the
Manifestation, Rollo, p. 122.
[17] Annex “B” of the
Manifestation, Rollo, pp. 123-126.
[18] Rollo, pp.
141-145.
[19] See Note 2.
[20] See Note 9.
[21] Rollo, p.
133.
[22] Atty. Cordeta wrote:
Sir:
This has reference to the record of Civil Case No. 95-02-16, entitled “FEDERICO S. TRISTE vs. THE TESTATE ESTATE OF SPS. FRANCISCO S. APOSTOL AND EUGENIA APOSTOL, et al., which has been in your possession ever since a Second Motion for Reconsideration was submitted for Resolution last February, 1999. Since June 1999 when we conducted our semestral physical inventory of cases, we have been verbally requesting that said record be returned to this Court. Instead of returning the said record, you instructed us to look for it in your Chambers in Branch 15, Burauen, Leyte and in your house at V & G Subdivision, Tacloban City. After searching for it at least three (3) times in both places, the same proved to be fruitless.
Because we could not set for hearing the Motion for Reconsideration, we have been berated, maligned and badmouthed by counsel of the defendant. We have also been threatened with an administrative complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator. Kindly return the record to this Office the soonest possible time. The hearing on the aforesaid motion is set for September 27 and 28, 1999 at 1:30 p.m.
Thank you for giving the matter your immediate attention.
[23] 291 SCRA 10, 29
(1998).
[24] See Note 16 at p.
125.
[25] Annex “C” of the
Letter-Complaint, Rollo, pp. 12-21.
[26] 312 SCRA 204 (1999).
[27] Id. at 212.
[28] Section 9, Rule 140.
[29] Section 11, Rule
140.
[30] Annex “A” of the
Comment of Atty. Cordeta, Rollo, p. 51.
[31] Annex “B” of the
Comment of Atty. Cordeta, Rollo, p. 52.
[32] Annex “C” of the
Comment of Atty. Cordeta, Rollo, p. 53.
[33] Said motion states:
MOTION
TO SET CASE FOR HEARING
The plaintiff, by counsel, to the Honorable Court, respectfully, states:
1. There is a pending motion before this Court which has not been resolved as of this date;
2. The plaintiffs [sic] motion to resolve refers to his Motion for Reconsideration of the ORDER declaring the plaintiff non-suited.
WHEREFORE, it is prayed that this case be set for hearing and argument on July 30, 1999 at 8:30 A.M.
FEDERICO N. TRISTE
Couns [sic] Plaintiff
IBP Life Member No. 01260
PTR No. 5398161D 2/9/99
Sagkahan, Tacloban City
NOTICE TO:
ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA
Counsel for the Defendants
Intramuros, Manila
Please take notice that the undersigned will submit the foregoing motion for the appropriate action by the Court on July 22, 1999 at 8:30 A.M. without further argument.
Sgd.
FEDERICO N. TRISTE
THE CLERK OF COURT
RTC, Branch 8, Tacloban City
GREETINGS:
Please submit the foregoing motion for the appropriate action by the Court on July 22, 1999 at 8:30 o’clock in the morning without further argument.
Sgd.
FEDERICO
N. TRISTE