JOSEFINA LIBUIT-LEWIS, A.M. No. P-06-2229
Complainant, [Formerly
OCA-IPI No. 06-2402-P]
Present:
- versus
- QUISUMBING,
J.,
Chairperson,
CARPIO,
CARPIO
MORALES,
LOIDA P. MORALEJO, TINGA,
and
Legal Researcher, RTC,
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
Branch 32,
Respondent.
Promulgated:
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Tinga,
J.:
This
is an administrative complaint filed by complainant Josefina Libuit-Lewis against Loida P. Moralejo, Legal Researcher[1] of the
Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 32, for Abuse of Power, Obstruction of
Justice and Negligence relative to an appealed case for ejectment,
docketed as Civil Case No. 04-110439, entitled “Josefina Libuit-Lewis
v. Carlo Valdez.”
In
a Verified Complaint[2] dated
Complainant
states that she informed respondent of the fact that the defendant-appellant in
the case had been going to her apartment and even “destroying” it. In turn, respondent asked complainant to prove
that her Memorandum of Appeal[4] had
already been received by the trial court. This fact of filing, complainant avers,
she was able to prove by presenting to
respondent the file copies of her lawyer.[5]
Since
March 2005, complainant had made follow-ups on the status of the case and each
time she did so, respondent promised to take the files of the case to Judge Nabong, Jr.’s desk for
appropriate action. However, in August
2005, much to complainant’s dismay, she was informed by respondent that Judge Nabong Jr. had retired from service and so her case
remained unacted upon. Respondent instead assured
complainant that she would see to it that said case would be resolved in a month.[6]
In
September 2005, respondent informed complainant that the pairing judge had
refused to decide the appealed case as the latter prioritized the disposition
of the criminal cases. Complainant then threatened respondent with an
administrative complaint for failing to transmit the records of the appealed
case to Judge Nabong, Jr. and the pairing judge.[7]
In
her undated Addendum to the Complaint,[8]
complainant adds that respondent failed to have Judge Nabong,
Jr. act on her motion for execution pending appeal “by withholding the folder
and keeping it in the cabinet.”[9] After
the trial court eventually disposed of the appealed case in complainant’s favor,
complainant alleges, respondent failed to remand the case records to the court
of origin[10]
resulting in the denial of her motion for execution, as it turned to have been filed
prematurely.[11]
Complainant concludes that respondent does not deserve to continue working in the
judiciary.[12]
In
her Comment[13]
dated
Respondent
states that records will prove she has not been remiss in the performance of
her duties.
Complainant’s
appeal was received by the trial court in July 2004. In August 2004, the trial
court ordered the parties to file their respective memoranda. Complainant duly
filed her memorandum in September 2004 while the defendant-appellant in the
appealed case requested an extension. In October 2004, complainant received
defendant-appellant’s memorandum. A few months later, complainant filed a
motion for execution pending appeal which defendant-appellant duly opposed.[15]
During
the exchange of pleadings by the parties, Judge Nabong,
Jr. suffered a mild stroke while visiting his family in the
Upon
Judge Nabong, Jr.’s arrival
in the
Respondent
then reminded Judge Nabong, Jr. of the several cases
kept inside the filing cabinet, all submitted for decision including
complainant’s case. He replied that he could not finish them all due to his
failing health. Judge Nabong, Jr. eventually retired
from the service in June 2005.[17]
Respondent
avers that while it is true that complainant’s case records are kept inside the
filing cabinet, it is because such cabinet is the designated storage of the
case records submitted for decision.[18]
When
an Acting Judge was assigned to the trial court, the staff, including respondent,
brought him several case records ready for disposition including complainant’s
case. On
Defendant-appellant
elevated the case to the Court of Appeals. The appellate court denied
defendant-appellant’s motion for extension of the period to file a petition for
review. But since the trial court had not yet received the resolution denying
the petition, it could not remand the case records to the court of origin. The
records of the case were ultimately remanded in February 2006.[20]
Complainant
asserts the delay in the progress of complainant’s case, if any, was due to the
aforecited reasons and nothing else as it was never
her intention to cause the delay. She prays that the instant administrative
complaint be dismissed, it being a pure case of miscommunication and misapprehension
of facts.[21]
Pursuant
to the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its Report[22] dated
When
the case was called for hearing on
In
the Investigation Report and Recommendation[25] dated
The
Investigating Judge found the sworn complaint and the addendum to the complaint
to be nothing but bare allegations. He observed that the attachments of the verified
complaint do not support the charges against respondent, viz.:
A.
Attachment
I – Notice of Appeal dated
B.
Attachment
II – Notice of Order & Order dated
C.
Attachment
III – Memorandum of Appeal for the Plaintiff-Appellee
(Complainant) dated
D.
Attachment
IV – Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Memorandum by
Defendant-Appellant dated
E.
Attachment
V – Notice of Order & Order dated
F.
Attachment
VI – Memorandum for Defendant-Appellant dated
G.
Attachment
VII – Motion for Execution Pending Appeal dated 17 February 2004 filed by
Plaintiff-Appellee (which appears to have been filed
by registered mail on 3 January 2005 as appearing on the upper right hand
portion of the first page of the motion);[32]
H.
Attachment
VIII – Vehement Opposition (To the Plaintiff-appellee’s
Motion For Execution Pending Appeal) dated
I.
Attachment
IX – Reply (to Vehement Opposition) dated
J.
Attachment
X – Notice of Decision & Decision dated
K.
Attachment
XI – Order dated
L.
Attachment
XII – Order dated
M.
Attachment
XIII – Motion for Execution dated
N.
Attachment
XIV – Notice of Resolution & Resolution dated 19 January 2006 issued by the
Special Sixth Division , Court of Appeals, denying the motion for extension of
time to file petition for review,[39]
Opposition, (To the Petitioner-Appellants’ Urgent Ex-Parte Motion For Extension
of Time to File Petition For Review) dated 18 January 2006,[40]
Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Petition for Review (with
issuance of Temporary Restraining Order and/or Preliminary Injunction) dated 27
December 2005;[41]
O.
Exhibit
XV – Decision dated
The Investigating Judge continued to
state in his report that:
x x
x x Even the circumstances
and material dates are appreciable for the respondent. It supports her claim
that delay was not attributable to her faults (sic). Court actions are not
carried out by the Branch Clerk of Court or in the present case the
Officer-in-Charge, the most indispensable element in court actions or
dispositions is the action of the presiding judge. In the instant case, the
presiding judge was indisposed during the pendency of
the appurtenant matters. The claim of the respondent that the presiding judge
was suffering from failing health was never rebutted by the [sic] herein complainant. It was due to this indisposition that delay
had set in on the relevant matters pending before the court. Furthermore, no
malicious cause for delay was ever attributed by the complainant upon the [sic]
herein respondent. This gives this Court reason to believe that delay was
neither malicious nor intended. Atty. De
Guzman, counsel for the respondent, aptly pointed this out in his manifestation
before this Court during the Clarificatory Hearing.[43]
ATTY. DE GUZMAN:
And may I respectfully
point out that any delay on the decision making was caused by Judge Nabong; the Judge not the Clerk of Court.[44]
x x x
x
It was not the respondent who should have made a ruling
upon complainant’s motions and case, it is the Judge. This Court take Judicial
Notice of the periods that have to lapse and the corresponding lapses in the
current mailing system as necessary delays in the administration of justice.
The judiciary is enslaved by the official mailing system running in this
country. However, there is no other recourse but to utilize the official
mailing system for service of certain court processes.[45]
The Investigating Judge likewise noted
that after Acting Judge Reno Concha had taken over
the sala of Judge Nabong,
Jr., respondent lost no time in referring to him the relevant matters for
resolution—an indication that respondent was not remiss in her duties and
responsibilities.[46]
Regarding
the delay in the remand of the records to the first level court, on the other
hand, the Investigating Judge found that this is attributable to the delay in
the receipt of the resolution denying defendant-appellant’s motion for extension
of the period for filing a petition for review.[47]
Anent
the issue of the case records being kept inside the filing cabinet, the
Investigating Judge held that this particular circumstance does not warrant a
conclusion that the records are being kept there to withhold the same from the
presiding judge or to delay any action on the case. The Investigating Judge
stated that as in any other branch of the Regional Trial Court in
The
recommendation of the Investigating Judge is well-taken.
In
administrative proceedings, the quantum of proof necessary for a finding of
guilt is substantial evidence or such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind may
accept as adequate
to support a conclusion.[49] In
addition, the complainant has the burden
of proving by substantial evidence the allegations in the complaint. In the
absence of contrary evidence, what will prevail is the presumption that
respondent has regularly performed his official duties, as in this case. This
is so in the instant case.[50]
Complainant
failed to substantiate the charges and allegations she leveled against
respondent. As correctly observed by the Investigating Judge, complainant was
unable to single
out any act committed
by
respondent constituting abuse of power. Complainant likewise did not succeed in establishing
the negligent acts of respondent. Finally, complainant failed to establish acts
constituting obstruction of justice. Other than the bare allegation in the
verified complaint and the addendum to the complaint, there is nothing in the
records that would indicate that respondent is guilty of the charges of abuse
of power, obstruction of justice and negligence. As such, the presumption that respondent
regularly performed her duties will prevail.[51] Accordingly,
for being baseless and unsubstantiated, the instant administrative complaint must
be dismissed for lack of merit.
A
final note. This Court has always been punctilious about any conduct, act or
omission that would violate the norm of public accountability or diminish
the people’s faith in the judiciary.
However,
when an administrative charge against a court personnel holds no basis whatsoever in
fact or in law, this Court will not hesitate to protect the innocent court
employees against any groundless accusation that trifles with judicial process.
This Court will not shirk from its responsibility of imposing discipline upon
employees of the judiciary, but neither will it hesitate to shield them from
unfounded suits that only serve to disrupt rather than promote the orderly
administration of justice.[52]
WHEREFORE,
the administrative complaint is hereby DISMISSED against Loida
P. Moralejo, Legal Researcher, Regional Trial Court
of Manila, Branch 32, with a WARNING to complainant to observe more circumspection
in filing administrative cases.
SO
ORDERED.
DANTE O. TINGA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
Chairperson
ANTONIO T. CARPIO CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO,
JR.
Associate Justice
[1]In
her Comment dated