EMELIE TAGUBA LUCERO, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1534
Davide, Jr., C.J. (Chairman),
- versus - Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago,
Carpio, and
Azcuna, JJ.
JUDGE FELINO U. BANGALAN,
Municipal Circuit Trial
Court, Promulgated:
Allacapan, Cagayan,
Respondent. September
7, 2004
x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
A judge should be faithful
to the law and maintain professional competence.[1]
As an administrative officer of the court, a judge should organize and
supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of
business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public
service and fidelity.[2]
On August 15, 2003, Emelie
Taguba Lucero filed a verified complaint[3]
with the Office of the Court Administrator charging Judge Felino U. Bangalan,
the presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Allacapan, Cagayan,
with Gross Ignorance of the Law for Rendering an Unjust Judgment, Violation of
Republic Act No. 6713, Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and Employees, and
Rule 3.01, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Violation of the Rule of
Summary Procedure and Legal Ethics.
The present complaint
originated from three (3) separate cases of Forcible Entry filed against herein
complainant by Wilfredo Garo in Civil Case 250-L;[4]
by Federico Aguinaldo in Civil Case 248-L[5]
and by Rogelio Antonio in Civil Case 249-L.[6]
All these cases were heard before the
sala of the respondent judge.
In relation to the aforementioned civil cases, the office
of the respondent judge through his Clerk of Court II, Fredelito R. Baltazar, issued
three separate summonses[7]
all addressed to complainant, Emelie Lucero.
Contrary to the express
provisions of the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure that all cases of
forcible entry, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought
to be recovered, will be governed by the said Rule,[8]
the above summonses failed to state that summary procedure shall apply to the
three civil cases of forcible entry.[9]
Each of the said summons also required Emelie Lucero to file her answer to the
complaint within 15 days upon her receipt of the summons. Under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure,
defendants are required to file their answers within 10 days from receipt of
the summons.[10]
On November 13, 2002,
Process Server Bernardo B. Tan served the summonses together with copies of the
complaints upon the person of Rendon Rivera, a purported nephew of complainant
Emilie Lucero.[11] In her complaint, Emelie Lucero stated that
the deficiencies in the summons issued by the office of the respondent judge
confused and misled her.[12]
Notwithstanding the confusion, complainant filed her answers to each of the
complaint filed against her on November 26, 2002.
Thereafter, respondent judge
set the three civil cases for preliminary conference on January 15, 2003. However, the preliminary conference for Civil
Case Nos. 250-L and 249-L was reset to February 6, 2003. On the other hand, the preliminary conference
for Civil Case No. 248-L was reset to February 16, 2003,[13]
a Sunday.
On February 12, 2003, before
the preliminary conference in Civil Case No. 248-L was conducted, respondent judge
rendered three separate decisions[14]
ordering complainant to surrender the possession of the contested property. Respondent judge grounded his decision upon
the failure of the complainant or her counsel to appear during the preliminary
conference set on February 6, 2003.
Complainant appealed[15]
the three decisions of the respondent judge to the Regional Trial Court of
Ballesteros, Cagayan, Branch 33, which annulled, reversed and set aside the
same on the ground of violation of due process in depriving the defendant,
herein complainant, an opportunity to be heard. The Regional Trial Court held:
The
records of the case bears out that on January 16, 2003 or prior to the
scheduled preliminary conference, the defendant-appellant has submitted her pre-trial
brief, thru counsel, while the plaintiff-appellee did not, which is a
procedural requirement before the parties may go to the preliminary conference
hearing. Instead, the lower Court has favorably granted the moved (sic)
of the counsel for the plaintiff-appellee for judgment based on the allegations
in the complaint.
It
also shows that the notification for the pre-trial conference sent to the
defendant-appellant was February 16, 2003, however, the decision was rendered
on February 12, 2003, hence there was miscommunication of the scheduled
pre-trial conference which the lower Court should have better look out (sic).[16]
When ordered to comment,[17]
respondent judge raised the defense that it was his Clerk of Court II, Mr.
Fredelito R. Baltazar, who erroneously indicated in the summons that the
reglementary period to file answers was fifteen days instead of only ten days as
provided for under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Such error notwithstanding,
respondent judge claimed that when complainant filed her answers to the three
complaints on November 26, 2002, she effectively waived whatever formal defects
may be found in the summonses issued by his office.
In his Comment, respondent judge
did not explain why the summonses issued in the three civil cases of forcible
entry filed against complainant failed to state that it shall be governed by
the Rule on Summary Procedure. Neither
did he explain why the preliminary conference for Civil Case No. 248-L was
calendared on a Sunday, a non-working day.
On January 19, 2004, the
Office of the Court Administrator submitted its report and recommendation[18]
that respondent judge be penalized with a fine of Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00) for negligence, with a warning
that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely.
After a careful review of
the records of this case, we agree with the findings of the Court Administrator,
except as to the amount of fine to be imposed on respondent judge.
All the complaints filed
with the lower court against the complainant clearly showed that they were “For:
FORCIBLE ENTRY.” These words appearing
on the captions should have alerted the respondent judge that the Rule on
Summary Procedure should be applied to all the three cases. Respondent judge’s apparent laxity in the
conduct of his official affairs paved the way for the issuance of three
deficient summonses which not only failed to state that the Revised Rule on
Summary Procedure shall govern but also gave defendant fifteen days to answer
the complaints, instead of only ten days.
Courts exist to dispense and
promote justice. The realization of
this solemn purpose depends to a great extent on the intellectual, moral and
personal qualities of the men and women who are called to serve as judges.[19]
A judge owes it to himself and his office to know by heart basic legal
principles and to harness his legal knowhow correctly and justly. When a judge
displays an utter unfamiliarity with the law and the rules, he erodes the
confidence of the public in the courts. Ignorance of the law by a judge can
easily be the mainspring of injustice.[20]
Thus, to the end that they be the personification of justice and rule of law,
judges should strive for a level of excellence exceeded only by their passion
for truth. Anything less than this
strict standard would subject them to administrative sanction.[21]
Respondent judge’s
explanation that his staff was responsible for erroneously stating in the summons
that complainant has 15 days to file her answer instead of the 10 day period
prescribed under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure deserves no
consideration. Time and again we have
ruled that a judge cannot hide behind the incompetence of his subordinates. He
should be the master of his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes
of his subjects.[22] A judge should be an effective manager of
the court and its personnel.[23]
He is directly responsible for the
proper discharge of the official functions of his staff. The efficient administration of justice
cannot accept as an excuse the shifting of the blame from one court personnel
to another.[24]
The setting of the
preliminary conference in Civil Case No. 248-L on a Sunday, a non-working day,
further underscores the negligence of the respondent judge. His collective actions fell short of the
competence and faithfulness to the law required of judges.[25]
However, we find no basis to
hold the respondent judge administratively liable for Rendering an Unjust
Judgment and violation of Republic Act No. 6713. In administrative proceedings, the complainant has the burden of
proving the allegations in his complaint with substantial evidence.[26]
In this case, the complainant failed to
substantiate her charges that respondent judge knowingly rendered an unjust
judgment and that he violated the provisions of Republic Act No. 6713. Charges
based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.[27]
In its report, the Office of
the Court Administrator recommended that respondent judge be fined in the
amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00).[28]
We find the recommended amount not commensurate to the professional infractions
committed by the respondent judge.
Under Section 9, Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, as amended,[29]
the violation of Supreme Court Rules, directives and circulars is classified as
a Less Serious Charge.
The prescribed penalty for a
Less Serious Charge is any of the following sanctions:
1. Suspension from office without salary and
other benefits for not less one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not
exceeding P20,000.00.
Under the circumstances
obtaining in this case, we hold that a fine of Twelve Thousand Pesos
(P12,000.00) is commensurate to respondent judge’s infraction.
WHEREFORE, based on the foregoing, Judge Felino U. Bangalan
of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Allacapan, Cagayan, is found guilty of
violation of the Revised Rule of Summary Procedure for which he is FINED Twelve Thousand
Pesos (P12,000.00). Judge Bangalan is further sternly warned
that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
HILARIO G. DAVIDE, JR.
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ADOLFO S. AZCUNA
Associate Justice
[1] Rule 3.01, Code of Judicial Conduct.
[2] Pantaleon v. Guadiz, 380 Phil. 106 (2000), citing
Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
[3] Rollo, pp. 1-6.
[4] Id.,
pp. 7-12.
[5] Id.,
pp. 13-20.
[6] Id.,
pp. 21-25.
[7] Id.,
pp. 29-31.
[8] Section 1, Paragraph A, Subsection 1.
[9] 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, Section 4:
SEC. 4. Duty of court.
– After the court determines that the case falls under summary procedure, it
may, from an examination of the allegations therein and such evidence as may be
attached thereto, dismiss the case outright on any of the grounds apparent therefrom
for the dismissal of a civil action.
If
no ground for dismissal is found it shall forthwith issue summons which shall
state that the summary procedure under this Rule shall apply.
[10] Id.,
Section 5.
[11] Rollo, pp. 26-28.
[12] Supra note 3.
[13] Rollo, p. 32.
[14] Id.,
pp. 34-50.
[15] Civil Case No. 250-L was docketed as Civil Case No.
33-140-2003, Civil Case No. 248-L was
docketed as Civil Case No. 33-138-2003, while Civil Case No. 249-L was docketed
as Civil Case No. 33-139-2003. The decisions in these appealed cases were
penned by Executive Judge Eugenio M. Tangonan, Jr.
[16] Rollo, p. 77.
[17] See First Indorsement of Court Administrator
Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. dated September 9, 2003. Rollo, p. 80.
[18] Rollo, pp. 177-182.
[19] Rodrigo Q. Tugot v. Judge Mamerto Coliflores, A.M.
No. MTJ-00-1332, 16 February 2004.
[20] Jocelyn Grageda v. Judge Nieto T. Tresvalles, A.M.
No. MTJ-04-1526, 2 February 2004.
[21] Supra note 20 at p. 8.
[22] Supra note 2 at p. 110.
[23] Re: Judge Fernando P. Agdamag, A.M. No. RTJ-94-4-156,
13 March 1996, 254 SCRA 644.
[24] Tan v. Madayag, A.M. No. RTJ-93-995, 11 March 1994,
231 SCRA 62.
[25] Supra note 1.
[26] Inocencio Montes v. Judge Efren Mallare, A.M. No.
MTJ-04-1528, 6 February 2004.
[27] Lambino v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 62 (1997).
[28] Supra note 18, page 182.
[29] Amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC which took effect on 1
October 2001.