Republic of the
Supreme Court
EN
BANC
|
NILDA
VERGINESA-SUAREZ, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE
RENATO J. DILAG and COURT STENOGRAPHER III CONCEPCION A. PASCUA, Respondents. x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - x OFFICE OF THE
COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, -
versus - JUDGE
RENATO J. DILAG, ESTER A. ASILO,
Officer-in-Charge, Court Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court, Branch 73,
Olongapo City, Zambales, and ATTY. RONALD D. GAVINO, Deputy Clerk of Court,
Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo City Respondents. |
|
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014
A.M. No.
RTJ-11-2293 (formerly
A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC) Present: CORONA, C.J., CARPIO, VELASCO, JR., LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, BRION, PERALTA, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, ABAD,*
VILLARAMA, JR., PEREZ,**
MENDOZA, and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: August
16, 2011 |
x
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
PER CURIAM:
For our consideration are: (1) the Motion for Leave to Admit Attached Second
Motion for Reconsideration[1] of
our Decision[2]
dated March 4, 2009 and the Resolution[3]
dated April 28, 2009 in the consolidated cases A.M. Nos. RTJ-06-2014 and
06-07-415-RTC, filed by respondent Judge Renato J. Dilag (Judge Dilag), and (1)
the Memorandum[4]
dated October 21, 2008 submitted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
in A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC.
These pending
incidents arose from the following factual background:
Acting upon the
complaint of Court Stenographer III Nilda Verginesa-Suarez (Suarez) of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 73, of
In its Audit Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted
at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Olongapo City, Zambales[5]
dated June 15, 2006, the OCA judicial audit team reported a total of 414 cases
pending before Judge Dilags court, either for decision, resolution, or in
other stages of proceedings without further action for a considerable length of
time. The same Audit Report also
accounted the irregularities in Judge Dilags handling of several cases pending
before his court including having conflicting judgments - one dismissing and
one granting the same petition in (1) Civil Case No. 180-0-2001, Lanie Pancho v. Rolando Gopez (Pancho case); (2) Civil Case No.
433-0-2003, Jeffrey Joseph T. Tomboc v.
Ruth Tomboc (Tomboc case); and
(3) Special Proceeding No. 436-0-2002, Petition
for Voluntary Dissolution of the Conjugal Partnership of Gains and for the
Separation of the Common Properties, Danilo del Rosario and Rachelle del
Rosario (Del Rosario case).
In a Resolution[6]
dated
The
investigating justice proceeded with his investigation and hearing on the
irregularities in the handling of cases and/or having conflicting judgments
and, subsequently, submitted his Report
and Recommendation[7]
finding and recommending that Judge Dilag be held administratively accountable
for gross misconduct constituting violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
gross ignorance of the law and procedure, gross negligence, and gross
inefficiency; and that the judges co-respondent, Pascua, be held
administratively liable for graft and corruption.
In our Decision dated March 4, 2009 in A.M.
Nos. RTJ-06-2014 and 06-07-415-RTC, we adopted Justice Garcias Report and
Recommendation and disposed in part:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, we hold
as follows:
1. Respondent
Judge Renato J. Dilag is hereby DISMISSED FROM THE
SERVICE, with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued
leave benefits, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
public office including government-owned or controlled corporations, for gross
misconduct, gross ignorance of the law or procedure, and gross negligence and
inefficiency.
2. Respondent
Court Stenographer III Concepcion A. Pascua is hereby DISMISSED FROM
THE SERVICE, which carries the accessory penalties of cancellation of her
eligibility, forfeiture of retirement benefits, and perpetual disqualification
from reemployment in the government service, for graft and corruption under
Paragraph A(9), Rule IV of Civil Service Commission Memorandum Circular No.
19-99, and this administrative case against respondent Pascua is hereby REFERRED
to the Office of the Ombudsman for appropriate action.
Judge Dilag and
Pascua each filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the foregoing Decision.
In his Motion
for Reconsideration, Judge Dilag denied having authored the decisions
dismissing the petitions in the Pancho, Tomboc, and Del Rosario cases. He also
asserted that there were no conflicting decisions to speak of in the Pancho, Tomboc, and Del Rosario cases because the decisions dismissing the petitions in
said cases were never served upon the counsels of the parties and, thus, lacked
legal value. Judge Dilag claimed that
Suarez, in connivance with her cohorts, were responsible for falsifying,
fabricating, and manufacturing the decisions which dismissed the aforementioned
three cases, so that they could continue with their illegal and nefarious
activities in the court. Judge Dilag
further disputed the findings against him of gross ignorance of the law and
procedure in the handling of (1) CV No. 188-0-01, Joyce Moreno v. Alvin Moreno (Moreno
case), and (2) CV No. 328-0-2001,
Eliodor Q. Perez v. Adelita Perez (Perez case), and of gross negligence and
gross inefficiency for failing to administer proper supervision over his court
staff.
Pascua, in her
Motion for Reconsideration, asked us to mitigate the penalty imposed on
her.
In a Resolution dated
Second Motion for Reconsideration
On
We deny Judge
Dilags Motion for Leave to Admit Attached Second Motion for Reconsideration
and note without action the appended Second Motion for Reconsideration. Rule 52, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, on
motions for reconsideration filed before the Court of Appeals, reads:
Sec.
2. Second
Motion for Reconsideration. No second motion for reconsideration of a
judgment or final resolution by the same party shall be entertained.
Taken in
conjunction with Rule 56, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, the aforequoted
provision is also applicable to original cases filed before the Supreme Court,
which includes disciplinary proceedings against judges, such as the one at
bar. A second motion for reconsideration
is, therefore, a prohibited pleading.
The rule against
entertaining a second motion for reconsideration is rooted in the basic tenet of
immutability of judgments. At some point
a decision becomes final and executory and, consequently, all litigations must
come to an end.
Indeed, there
have been instances when we gave merit to second motions for reconsideration,
but only when there are extraordinary persuasive reasons and only after an
express leave shall have been obtained.[8] In administrative cases involving the
discipline of judges and court personnel, we even allowed third motions for
reconsideration but, still, only whenever justified by the circumstances.[9]
No such
extraordinary persuasive reason or justifying circumstance exists in the
present case. We stress that all the
issues and arguments raised and evidence presented by Judge Dilag in his
defense were already exhaustively discussed in our Decision dated
We note that
other than our Decision dated P30,000.00.
Moreover, the above-mentioned Memorandum dated
Hence, we find
no justification for reversing the penalty of dismissal from the service with
forfeiture of all retirement benefits, excluding accrued leave benefits, and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations, which we imposed upon
Judge Dilag in our Decision dated
OCA Memorandum dated
in A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC
With respect to
the 414 cases pending before the RTC-Branch 73 of Olongapo City, we explicitly
directed Judge Dilag, in our Resolution dated August 1, 2006, to decide within
six months the 93 cases already beyond, as well as the 33 cases still within,
the reglementary period to decide; to resolve within 30 days the
motions/incidents in 10 cases already beyond, as well as in 4 cases still
within, the reglementary period to resolve; and to immediately take appropriate
action on 267 cases in different stages of the proceedings which were not acted
upon for a considerable length of time.
We further directed Judge Dilag, Officer-in-Charge Ester Asilo (OIC
Asilo), Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Ronald B. Gavino (Atty. Gavino), and
Clerks-in-Charge Luzviminda P. Lacaba (Lacaba) and Admer L. Lumanog (Lumanog)
as follows:
A.M. No.
06-7-415-RTC. -
Re: Audit Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the RTC, Branch 73,
Olongapo City, Zambales.- The Court Resolved, upon the recommendation of the
Office of the Court Administrator and without prejudice to consideration of
sanctions, to
x
x x x
(b) DIRECT Presiding Judge Renato J. Dilag and Officer-in-Charge Ester A. Asilo, same court, to
(i) TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION on the following
observations noted by the Audit Team:
(1) Entries in the docket books are not updated
and deficient entries especially in civil and special proceedings which merely
indicate the title of the case and the date the case was filed. Copies of the decision were stapled in the
pages.
(2) No Certificate of Arraignment attached to
criminal case records.
(3) Minutes of the Hearing have no summary of
what transpired during the hearing of the case except hearings/trial with
witnesses presented.
(4) Returns of warrants of arrest are not
properly monitored.
(5) There are pending criminal cases which were
already included in the bundled or archived cases.
(6) Registry Return Cards were not properly
monitored and allegedly not yet attached to their respective case records.
(7) Court Order with directives for parties were
not properly monitored especially for the DSWD worker and the Office of the
City/Provincial Prosecutor to submit home and study report and to conduct
reinvestigation of criminal cases, investigation to determine collusion between
the parties in the annulment cases as well as the submission of the required
pleadings, respectively.
(8) The Monthly Report of Cases submitted to the
CMO-OCA does not accurately reflect the number of cases submitted for
decision/resolution.
(9) Judgment on the bonds is not executed.
(ii) EXPLAIN within thirty (30) days from notice
hereof why the number of cases submitted for decision/resolutions are not
accurately reflected in their Monthly Report of Cases in gross violations of
existing circulars; and
(iii) SUBMIT a REPORT on the action taken on, and
the present status of, the foregoing cases in CHRONOLOGICAL ORDER as listed
above, attaching thereto copies of the order/decision/resolution for reference,
as well as the action taken on pars. (b.i) and (b.ii) together with the
corresponding required explanation as directed;
(c) DIRECT Atty.
Ronald Gavino, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Olongapo
City, to EXPLAIN within thirty (30) days from notice hereof why the report on
ex-parte proceedings in the following cases were not submitted to the Court, to
wit:
CASE NUMBER
|
REMARKS
|
|
1. SP 224-0-2002 |
Order |
|
2. SP 512-0-2002 |
Order |
|
3. SP 322-0-2004 |
Order |
|
4. SP 15-0-2005 |
Order |
|
5. SP 198-0-2005 |
Order |
|
6. SP 199-0-2005 |
Order |
|
7. SP 33-0-2005 |
Order |
(d) DIRECT Ms. Luzviminda P. Lacaba and Mr. Admer L. Lumanog, Clerks-in-Charge of the Docket Books, same court, to UPDATE the entries in the docket books assigned to them from year 2005 to 2006; SUBMIT COMPLIANCE therewith within sixty (60) days from notice hereof; and SUBMIT a quarterly report until the updating of the aforesaid docket books from year 2000 is completed;
x
x x x
(h) DESIGNATE Presiding Judge Consuelo A. Bocar, RTC, Branch 71, Iba, Zambales, as Assisting Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 73, Olongapo City.
As a result of
the additional respondents required by the OCA to comply, namely, OIC Asilo,
Atty. Gavino, Lacaba and Lumanog, A.M. No. 06-07-415-RTC was re-docketed as
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2293.
Judge Dilag
submitted his Letter-Explanation[11]
dated October 9, 2006 in partial compliance with our aforementioned directives,
pointing out therein that he had already decided, resolved and/or acted upon 64
of the pending cases even before his receipt of the OCA judicial audit
report. He blamed his court staff for
the delay in the updating of the status of these cases. He also explained that the delay in the
disposition of most of the pending cases was due to the heavy influx of family
court cases in his sala, plus the
lack of a regular branch clerk and other court personnel.
OIC Asilo filed
a Letter-Explanation[12]
dated October 9, 2006 with attached Monthly Report of Cases, List of Cases
Submitted for Decision, List of New Criminal Cases Filed, List of Criminal
Cases Dismissed, Archived, and Transferred to Other Branch, List of Civil and
Special Proceedings Cases Filed, List of Decided Civil and Special Proceedings
Cases, all for the month of March 2006, and list of monthly report of cases
submitted for the years 2004 to 2006. As
to paragraph (b.11) of our August 1, 2006 Resolution requiring OIC Asilo to
explain why the number of cases submitted for decision/resolution were not
accurately reflected in the monthly report of cases of RTC-Branch 73 of
Olongapo City, OIC Asilo responded that she was designated as OIC of said trial
court only on March 30, 2005, in addition to her regular position as Court
Stenographer III, and that she merely inherited the confused state of the cases
when the clerk-in-charge of criminal cases abruptly resigned after Asilos
designation as OIC.
Atty. Gavino
submitted his Explanation and Compliance[13]
dated October 6, 2006, with regard to paragraph (c) of our Resolution dated
August 1, 2006 which directed him to explain why the report on ex parte proceedings in the specified
cases were not submitted to the Court. Atty.
Gavino gave the following account:
1.
In
Sp. Proc. No. 224-0-2002 The reception of evidence was delegated to Atty.
John V. Aquino, not to the undersigned, as per court order dated June 21, 2002.
2.
In
Sp. Proc. No. 512-0-2002 Notwithstanding the delegation of the reception of
evidence for the petitioner to the undersigned, the petitioner has not pursued
the foregoing case, and has not presented any evidence, either testimonial or
documentary to this date.
3.
In
Sp. Proc. No. 322-0-2004 Although the undersigned was designated to receive
evidence for the petitioner, the case was nevertheless heard in open court and
did no longer require the ex-parte presentation of evidence before the
undersigned.
4.
In
Sp. Proc. No. 15-0-2005 Notwithstanding the delegation of the reception of
evidence to the undersigned, the petitioners have not presented any evidence,
either testimonial or documentary to the undersigned to this date. The presentation of petitioners evidence in
open court was initially scheduled by the trial court on
5.
In
Sp. Proc. No. 198-0-2005 Although the undersigned was designated to receive
evidence for the petitioner, the case was nevertheless heard in open court and
did no longer require the ex-parte presentation of evidence before the
undersigned. A decision was rendered by
the trial court on
6.
In
Sp. Proc. No. 199-0-2005 Although the undersigned was designated to receive
evidence for the petitioner, the case was nevertheless heard in open court and
did no longer require the ex-parte presentation of evidence before the
undersigned. A decision was rendered by
the trial court on
7.
In
Sp. Proc. No. 33-0-2005 Notwithstanding the delegation of the reception of
evidence to the undersigned, the petitioners have not pursued the foregoing
case, and have not presented any evidence, either testimonial or documentary to
the undersigned to this date. (Referral to annexes omitted.)
Lacaba and
Lumanog filed Letters[14]
dated
Jude Dilags Letter[15]
dated
In his Letter[16]
dated
With respect to the observations of the
Audit Team in paragraph (b.11), pages 17 to 18 of the resolution, we have -
(1)
Directed
the respective clerks-in-charge to update the entries in the corresponding
dockets especially in Civil and Special Proceedings cases. Mere indications of the title of the cases
and the date the case was filed was apparently the practice they merely
followed from their predecessors;
(2)
The
OIC has been tasked to attach the Certificate of Arraignment to criminal case
records and this is being updated right now;
(3)
The
Court Interpreter has been directed to see to it a summary of what transpired
during the hearing of the cases is made and attached to the records;
(4)
The
clerk-in-charge of the Criminal Docket has been reminded to monitor strictly
the returns of the warrants of arrest issued by the court. He shall see to it that the officer to whom
the warrant is assigned for execution shall make the corresponding report to
the court;
(5)
The
finding that pending criminal cases were allegedly bundled in archived cases
appears to be an isolated incident.
Nevertheless, the clerk-in-charge has been advised to exert utmost
caution in the filing of the case folders;
(6)
The
clerk-in-charge of the Civil and Criminal Dockets were also reminded to
properly monitor and attach to the respective case folders the registry return
cards;
(7)
The
clerk-in-charge of the Civil Docket has been specifically reminded to see to it
that the DSWD Social Worker and the Office of the City and Provincial
Prosecutors have submitted their respective Home and Child Study Reports and
conduct of reinvestigation in criminal cases and investigation of cases to
determine collusion between the parties in annulment cases as well as the
submission of the required pleadings.
The OIC is also tasked to monitor and see to the compliance by the
respective offices;
(8)
The
finding that the monthly report of cases submitted to the CMO-OCA does not
accurately reflect the number of cases submitted for decision has been properly
addressed and corrected. Subsequent
reports after the May 2006 audit accurately reflects the number of cases
submitted for decision/resolution.
(9)
With
respect to the bonds mentioned in paragraph 9, the Court has fully complied
with the execution of the bonds as reflected in our Report dated
With respect to paragraph (b.11),
we have submitted our explanation dated
Judge Dilag
followed-up with Letters[17]
dated
On October 21,
2008, the OCA issued its Memorandum finding Judge Dilag administratively
accountable for gross inefficiency, gross negligence, perjury, acts prejudicial
to the best interest of the service, and violation of existing Supreme Court
Circulars, and recommending the penalty of dismissal from the service with
forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, with prejudice to his
re-employment in any branch, agency, or instrumentality of the government
including government-owned and controlled corporations.
The OCA also
came up with the following recommendations for OIC Asilo, Atty. Gavino, Lacaba,
and Lumanog:
4.
Officer-in-Charge Ester Asilo, same Court, be held
administratively liable for gross ignorance of the procedure, gross
inefficiency, perjury, violations of existing SC Circulars and acts prejudicial
to the best interest of the service and be SUSPENDED from office without salary
and other benefits for one (1) month and that a repetition of the same shall be
dealt with more severely;
5.
Atty. Ronald D. Gavino, Deputy Clerk of Court, Office of the Clerk of
Court, RTC, Olongapo City be DIRECTED to be more circumspect with the
performance of his function and STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same
shall be dealt with more severely; and
6.
Clerks-in-Charge Luzviminda P. Lacaba and ADMER L. LUMANOG be directed to SUBMIT a report on the
current status of their updating of docket books from year 2000 within fifteen
(15) days from notice hereof.[19]
The audit and physical inventory of
the cases pending before Judge Dilags sala revealed 377 cases[20]
already submitted for decision or resolution or still in various stages of
proceedings, which Judge Dilag failed to decide or resolve within the
reglementary period or to act upon for a considerable length of time without proper
justification. In addition to not being
updated, the docket books of Judge Dilags court contained deficient and
improper entries. Returns of warrants of
arrest and court orders with directives to parties were not properly monitored
and attached to the records. Judge Dilag
eventually decided, resolved, and/or acted upon the aforementioned 377 cases,
pursuant to our Resolution of August 1, 2006; but the OCA, in its Memorandum
dated October 21, 2008, still found Judge Dilags full compliance unsatisfactory
and recommended Judge Dilags dismissal from the service.
Regarding
the recommendation of the OCA as to Judge Dilag, we note that the OCA
Memorandum dated October 21, 2008 concerns a pending incident in these
consolidated administrative matters. In
our Decision dated
As to the
compliance of the other court personnel with the directives in our
The
role of the Branch Clerk of Court plays a vital and crucial role in the
administration of the courts business.
Although the judge is primarily responsible for the efficient court management,
the Branch Clerk of Court, subject to the control and supervision of the
Presiding Judge, is the extension of the Clerk of Court for administrative
purposes and performs some of the functions and the duties of the Clerk of
Court within the branch. As such, the
Branch Clerk of Court has control and supervision over his personnel, all
properties and supplies in the office (Par. D General Functions and Duties of
the Clerk of Court and other Court Personnel, the 2002 Revised Manual for
Clerks of Court, pp. 191-194).
A
Clerk of Court is an essential officer in any judicial system, his office being
the center of activities, both adjudicative and administrative (Basco vs.
Gregorio, 242 SCRA 614). Clerks of
Court are, among other things, required to: (1) safely keep all the records,
papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his charge, including
the library of the court, and the seals and furniture belonging to his office
(Sec. 7, Rule 136, Rules of Court); (2) keep a general docket, each page of
which shall be numbered and prepared for receiving all the entries in the
single case, and shall enter therein all cases, numbered consecutively in the
order in which they were received, and, under the hearing of each case and a
complete title thereof, the date of each paper filed or issued, of each order
or judgment entered, and of each other step taken in the case, so that by
reference to a single page the history of the case may be seen.
Tasked with the foregoing duties, Officer-in-Charge Asilo must recognize that her administrative
functions are just as vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice
(Callejo, Jr. vs. Garcia, 206 SCRA 491).
She cannot proffer as an excuse that she merely inherited and continue
the procedure followed prior to her designation. Upon acceptance of her designation, her first
concern was to know her assumed duties and responsibilities especially when
administrative circulars, issuances and manual of clerks of court are at hand.
As
mentioned, the branch clerk of court shall, at the end of each month, be
responsible for the preparation of the monthly report of cases which he shall
certify under oath as true and correct, alongside a certification of its
correctness by the presiding judge (A.C. No. 4-2004 dated
As regards the falsified registry
return cards which are the subject of investigation before Court of Appeals
Justice Garcia, the said omission could have been prevented if OIC Asilo has
been more watchful over the conduct of court employees. Having control and management of all court
records, exhibits, documents, properties and supplies (Section D, Chapter
VII-Manual for Clerks of Court), she could have easily detected said wrongdoing
had the attachment of the registry return cards to the case records been
regularly done. What is more surprising
is that, despite said discovery, OIC Asilo did not initiate any investigation
and/or inventory of the case records. In
addition to being remiss in her duties, she clearly failed to exercise
diligence in supervising her subordinates.
The laxity of respondent clerk in the supervision of court personnel was
repugnant to her role as an adjudicative and administrative officer of the
court.
Under the foregoing circumstances,
it appears that the negligence of Officer-in-Charge Asilo in the performance of
her duties and responsibilities compounded the delay in the disposition of
cases in Judge Dilags sala.
Additionally, her lackadaisical attitude in the supervision of court
personnel aggravated the mismanagement of the courts business. If she were only assiduous in the performance
of her official duties and in supervising the court personnel and managing the
courts dockets, court personnel will be deterred from committing any
wrongdoing as the same can be easily detected.[21]
(Emphases ours.)
Nevertheless, we
modify the designation of the offense committed by OIC Asilo. OIC Asilos inaccurate preparation of the
monthly case reports, inept monitoring of case records, and incompetent
supervision of court personnel, all constituted inefficiency and incompetence
in the performance of official duties.
This administrative infraction is a grave offense, punishable under Rule
IV, Section 52, paragraph A(16) of the Civil Service Commission Memorandum
Circular No. 19-99 as follows:
Section
52. x x x.
Par.
A(16). Inefficiency and incompetence in
the performance of official duties
1st
offense Suspension (6 mos. 1 day to 1 year)
2nd
offense Dismissal
Given that this
is the first time OIC Asilo committed the said infraction, we impose upon her
the minimum period of six months and one day suspension.
As
for Atty. Gavino, the OCA found unsatisfactory his explanation for failing to
submit a report on the following ex parte
proceedings:
As
regards SP No. 512-0-200 and SP No. 33-0-2005, the Courts order of
As the OCA
recommended, we direct Atty. Gavino to be more circumspect in the performance
of his functions and sternly warn him that a repetition of the same or similar
infraction will be dealt with more severely.
Lastly, we fully
adopt the recommendations of the OCA to direct Lacaba and Lumanog to submit,
within 15 days from notice, a status report on the updating of the docket books
of RTC-Branch 73 of Olongapo City from the year 2000 until present; and to
designate Presiding Judge Consuelo A. Bocar of RTC-Branch 71 of Iba, Zambales,
as Acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Branch 73 of Olongapo City, Zambales, with
entitlement to certain allowances allowed under existing rules.
WHEREFORE,
in view of all the foregoing, we rule as follows:
1. The Motion for Leave to Admit Attached
Second Motion for Reconsideration filed by respondent Judge Renato J. Dilag of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73 of Olongapo City, Zambales is DENIED for being a prohibited
pleading. Consequently, the attached
Second Motion for Reconsideration of our Decision dated March 4, 2009 and Resolution dated April 28, 2009 in A.M.
Nos. RTJ-06-2014 and 06-07-415-RTC is NOTED
WITHOUT ACTION; and
2. The OCA Memorandum dated
a. Officer-in-Charge Ester A. Asilo of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 73 of Olongapo City, Zambales, is SUSPENDED from office for a period of SIX MONTHS AND ONE DAY for inefficiency
and incompetence in the performance of official duties, pursuant to Rule IV,
Section 52, paragraph A(16) of Civil Service Memorandum Circular No. 19-99;
b. Atty. Ronald D. Gavino, Deputy Clerk of
Court of the Regional Trial Court of Olongapo City, Zambales, is DIRECTED to be more circumspect in the
performance of his functions and is STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt
with more severely;
c. Clerks Luzviminda P. Lacaba and Admer L.
Lumanog are DIRECTED to submit,
within 15 days from notice hereof, a status report on the updating of the
docket books of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 73 of Olongapo City, Zambales,
beginning the year 2000 until present; and
d. Presiding Judge Consuelo A. Bocar of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, of Iba, Zambales, is DESIGNATED as Acting Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 73 of Olongapo City, Zambales, with entitlement to reimbursement of
traveling expenses with per diems,
additional expense allowances, and judicial incentive allowances as provided
for under existing rules.
SO ORDERED.
|
ANTONIO
T. CARPIO Associate
Justice |
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice |
ARTURO D. BRION Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate
Justice
|
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate
Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
On
Official leave |
|
MARIANO C. Associate
Justice
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD
Associate
Justice |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No part |
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate
Justice |
JOSE Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
JOSE CATRAL Associate
Justice |
MARIA LOURDES P. A. SERENO Associate
Justice |
* On leave.
** No part.
[1] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014), Vol. II, pp. 714-717.
[2]
[3]
[4] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-11-2293), pp. 17181734.
[5] Id. at 2-42.
[6]
[7] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-06-2014), Vol. II, pp. 197-220.
[8] Tirazona v. Philippine EDS Techno-Service, Inc., G.R. No. 169712, January 20, 2009, 576 SCRA 625, 628.
[9] Ocampo v. Bibat-Palamos, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1655,
[10] A.M. No. RTJ-05-1921,
[11] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-11-2293), pp. 188-189.
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20] Excluding the 37 other cases submitted for decision or resolution which are still within the reglementary period for Judge Dilag to decide or resolve.
[21] Rollo (A.M. No. RTJ-11-2293), pp. 1730-1731.
[22]