Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
FIRST
DIVISION
|
FE D. Complainant, -
versus - JUDGE
LIZABETH G. TORRES, MeTC,
Branch 60, Respondent. |
|
A.M.
No. MTJ-11-1796 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-2279-MTJ) Present: LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,* Acting
Chairperson, BERSAMIN, DEL CASTILLO, VILLARAMA, JR.,
and PERLAS-BERNABE,** JJ. Promulgated: June 13, 2012 |
x- - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This is an administrative complaint
filed by complainant Fe D. Valdez against respondent Judge Lizabeth
Gutierrez-Torres of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 60, Mandaluyong
City, for delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 20191.
Civil Case No. 20191 was an action
for damages and attorneys fees instituted on P167,278.56; and that PGAI and Tan refused to pay her claim
despite several demands. Complainant
prayed for judgment awarding in her favor P167,278.56 as actual damages,
P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, P50,000.00
attorneys fees, plus P2,000.00 appearance fees.
Respondent proceeded to hear Civil
Case No. 20191 in accordance with the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. After the parties had filed their respective position
papers, respondent submitted Civil Case No. 20191 for decision on
Almost a year had passed but Civil
Case No. 20191 remained unresolved, prompting complainant to file a motion for
immediate resolution of Civil Case No. 20191 on
Frustrated by the long wait for the
resolution of Civil Case No. 20191, complainant filed the present
administrative complaint on
Through a 1st Indorsement
dated
The OCA sent a 1st Tracer
dated September 15, 2010 reiterating the order for respondent to submit her
comment to the administrative complaint against her within 10 days from receipt
of said tracer, otherwise, the complaint shall be submitted for resolution without
her comment.[12] The Registry Return Receipt established that respondent
received the 1st Tracer on October 22, 2010, yet she still did not
comply with the same.
In the meantime, complainant filed a
letter before the OCA on September 8, 2010, requesting action on her
administrative complaint given that respondent has still not decided Civil Case
No. 20191.
On
In its report[14] dated
RECOMMENDATION: Premises considered, it is most respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
1. The instant administrative complaint be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, former presiding judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 60, Mandaluyong City;
2. Respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres be found GUILTY of INSUBORDINATION, GROSS INEFFICIENCY, and GRAVE and SERIOUS MISCONDUCT;
3.
In view of her previous dismissal from the service, a
FINE OF P20,000.00 instead be imposed upon her, to be deducted from her
accrued leave credits;
4. To effect the same, the Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services-OCA be DIRECTED to compute respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres earned leave credits; and
5. The Leave Division, thereafter, be DIRECTED to forward respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres total accrued leave credits to the Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office-OCA, for the latter to compute the monetary value of the said leave credits and deduct therefrom the amount of the fine herein imposed, without prejudice to whatever penalty the Court may impose on other remaining and/or pending administrative cases, if any.[15]
The
Court then issued a Resolution[16] dated October 3,
2011 re-docketing the administrative complaint against respondent as a regular
administrative matter and requiring the parties to manifest within 10 days from
notice if they were willing to submit the matter for resolution based on the
pleadings filed. Following the failure
of both parties to submit their respective manifestations despite notice, the
Court deemed the instant case submitted for decision.
At the outset, the Court notes that respondent had
been given ample opportunity to address the complaint against her. The OCA had sent and
respondent received the 1st Indorsement dated June 10, 2010 and 1st
Tracer dated September 15, 2010, both of which explicitly
required her to file her comment on the complaint. However, up until the resolution of the
present case, respondent has not complied with the OCA directives. Moreover, respondent had also failed
to comply, despite due notice, with the Resolution dated October 3, 2011 of the
Court itself requiring the parties to manifest whether they were willing to
submit the present administrative matter for resolution based on the pleadings
filed.
It is true that respondents failure
to submit her comment and manifestation as required by the OCA and this Court,
respectively, may be tantamount to insubordination,[17] gross
inefficiency, and neglect of duty.[18] It is respondents duty, not only to obey the
lawful orders of her superiors, but also to defend herself against complainants
charges and prove her fitness to remain on the Bench.[19] As a result
of her non-compliance with the directives of the OCA and the resolution of this
Court, respondent had completely lost the opportunity to defend herself against
complainants charges.
As for the merits of the instant administrative
complaint, the pleadings and evidence on record satisfactorily establish respondents guilt for the undue
delay in resolving Civil Case No. 20191.
Section 15(1), Article VIII of the
Constitution, mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must
be decided or resolved within three
months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. With respect to cases falling under the Rule
on Summary Procedure, first level courts are only allowed 30 days following the receipt of the last affidavit and position
paper, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, within which to
render judgment.
As a general principle, rules prescribing the time within
which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered
absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly
and speedy discharge of judicial business. By their very nature, these
rules are regarded as mandatory.[20]
Judges are oft-reminded of their duty
to promptly act upon cases and matters pending before their courts. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct, directs judges to dispose of the courts business
promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial
Ethics further exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and
resolution of cases and matters pending before their courts, to wit:
6. PROMPTNESS
He should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied.
7. PUNCTUALITY
He should be punctual in the performance of his judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys is of value and that if the judge is unpunctual in his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice.
Administrative
Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988 once more reminds all
magistrates to observe scrupulously the periods prescribed in Section 15, Article
VIII of the Constitution, and to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory
matters pending before their courts.
Prompt
disposition of cases is attained basically through the efficiency and
dedication to duty of judges. If they do
not possess those traits, delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable to
the prejudice of litigants. Accordingly, judges should be imbued with a high
sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to
promptly administer justice.[21]
Unfortunately, respondent failed to
live up to the exacting standards of duty and responsibility that her position
requires. Civil Case No. 20191 was
submitted for resolution on July 19, 2006, yet it was still pending when complainant
filed the present administrative complaint on June 4, 2010, and remained
unresolved per complainants manifestation filed on September 8, 2010.
More than four years after being submitted for resolution, Civil Case No.
20191 was still awaiting decision by respondent.
Respondent irrefragably failed to
decide Civil Case No. 20191 within the 30-day period prescribed by the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure. Her inaction in Civil Case No. 20191 is
contrary to the rationale behind the Rule on Summary Procedure, which was
precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive determination
of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy
disposition of cases.[22] Indeed, respondent even failed to decide
Civil Case No. 20191 within the three-month period mandated in general by the
Constitution for lower courts to decide or resolve cases. Records do not show that respondent
made any previous attempt to report and request for extension of time to
resolve Civil Case No. 20191.
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies undue delay in rendering a
decision as a less serious charge for which the penalty is suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for one month to three months, or a
fine of P10,000.00 to P20,000.00.
The Court
is well-aware of the previous administrative cases against respondent for
failure to act with dispatch on cases and incidents pending before her. In Del
Mundo v. Gutierrez-Torres,[23] respondent was
found guilty of gross inefficiency for undue delay in resolving the motion to
dismiss Civil Case No. 18756, for which she was fined P20,000.00. In Gonzalez
v. Torres,[24] respondent was
sanctioned for unreasonable delay in resolving the Demurrer to Evidence in
Criminal Case No. 71984 and meted the penalty of a fine in the amount of P20,000.00.
In Plata
v. Torres,[25] respondent was fined P10,000.00 for
undue delay in resolving the Motion to Withdraw Information in Criminal Case
No. 6679, and another P10,000.00 for her repeated failure to comply with
Court directives to file her comment on the administrative complaint against
her. In Winternitz v. Gutierrez-Torres,[26] the Court held respondent
guilty of undue delay in acting upon the Motion to Withdraw Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 84382, 84383, and
84384, and suspended her from office without salary and other benefits for
one month. In Soluren v. Torres,[27] respondent was
once again adjudged guilty of undue delay in acting upon repeated motions to
withdraw the information in Criminal Case No. 100833 for which she was fined P20,000.00. In Lugares v. Gutierrez-Torres,[28] promulgated on November
23, 2010, the Court already dismissed respondent from the service for gross inefficiency,
gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty, and violation of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, in relation to Civil Case Nos. 19887, 19063, 17765, and
18425; as well as for insubordination because she defied Court orders by
failing to file her comment on the charges against her. Finally, in Pancubila v. Torres,[29] the Court imposed
another fine of P20,000.00 upon respondent for undue delay in rendering
a decision and violation of a directive in connection with Civil Case No. 20700. In all the
foregoing administrative cases, respondent was sternly warned that a repetition
of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Given that
respondent had been previously dismissed from the service, the penalty of
suspension is already inapplicable herein.
Instead, the Court imposes upon respondent, for her undue delay in
resolving Civil Case No. 20191, a fine in the maximum amount of P20,000.00,
to be deducted from her accrued leave credits.
WHEREFORE, respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres
is found GUILTY of the less serious
charge of undue delay in resolving Civil Case No. 20191, for which she is FINED the amount of P20,000.00, to be deducted from
her accrued leave credits, since she had already been dismissed from the
service. To effect the penalty imposed,
the Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services-OCA, is DIRECTED to ascertain respondent
Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torress total earned leave credits. Thereafter, the Finance Division, Fiscal
Management Office-OCA, is DIRECTED to
compute the monetary value of respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torress total
accrued leave credits and deduct therefrom the amount of fine herein imposed
without prejudice to whatever penalty the Court may impose on other remaining
and/or pending administrative cases, if any.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
Acting
Chairperson, First Division
WE CONCUR:
Associate Justice
|
MARIANO C.
DEL CASTILLO Associate Justice |
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ESTELA M.
PERLAS-BERNABE Associate Justice |
|
* Per
Special Order No. 1226 dated May 30, 2012.
** Per
Special Order No. 1227 dated May 30, 2012.
[1] Rollo, pp. 6-9.
[2] Id.
at 65.
[3] Id.
at 67.
[4] Id.
at 69.
[5] Id.
at 71.
[6] Id.
at 73.
[7] Id.
at 75.
[8] Id.
at 77.
[9] Id.
at 78.
[10] Id.
at 80.
[11] Id.
at 82.
[12] Id.
at 83.
[13] A.M.
Nos. MTJ-08-1719, MTJ-08-1722 and MTJ-08-1723, November 23, 2010, 635 SCRA 716.
[14] Rollo, pp. 90-94.
[15] Id.
at 93-94.
[16] Id. at 95.
[17] Tan v. Sermonia, A.M. No. P-08-2436, August 4, 2009, 595 SCRA 1, 13.
[18] Sabado v. Cajigal, A.M. No. RTJ-91-666, March
12, 1993, 219 SCRA 800, 805.
[19] Id.
[20] Gachon v. Devera, Jr., G.R. No. 116695,
June 20, 1997, 274 SCRA 540, 548-549, citing Cf. Valdez v. Ocumen, 106 Phil. 929, 933 (1960); Alvero v. De la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428, 434 (1946).
[21] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical
Inventory of Cases in the Regional Trial
[22] Sevilla v. Lindo, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1714,
[23] A.M. No. MTJ-05-1611,
September 30, 2005, 471 SCRA 152, 161.
[24] A.M. No. MTJ-06-1653, July
30, 2007, 528 SCRA 490, 505.
[25] A.M. No. MTJ-08-1721, October 24, 2008, 570 SCRA 12, 21.
[26] A.M. No. MTJ-09-1733,
February 24, 2009, 580 SCRA 166, 174.
[27] A.M. No. MTJ-10-1764,
September 15, 2010, 630 SCRA 449, 455.
[28] Supra
note 13.
[29] A.M. No. MTJ-11-1797,
October 10, 2011.