Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
SECOND DIVISION
|
ELADIO D. PERFECTO, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. RTJ-11-2258
(formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-3340-RTJ Present: CARPIO, J.,Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ, SERENO, and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June 20,
2012 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D
E C I S I O N
BRION, J.:
For resolution
is the present administrative complaint[1] filed
by Eladio D. Perfecto (complainant)
against Presiding Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera (respondent), Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Catarman,
The
Factual Antecedents
In support of the charges, the
complainant alleges that on July 29, 2008, he filed a Petition to Cite for
Contempt against one Dalmacio Grafil and a Ven S. Labro. The petition was
docketed as Special Civil Action No. 194[2]
and was raffled to the court presided over by the respondent. The complainant
laments that the case has since been gathering dust in the court of the
respondent. He maintains that the respondent should be made administratively
liable for her failure to act on the case within a reasonable period of time.
On the second cause of action, the
complainant claims that he is the publisher and Editor-in-Chief of the Catarman
Weekly Tribune (CWT), the only
accredited newspaper in
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through then Deputy Court Administrator
Nimfa C. Vilches, referred the complaint to the respondent for comment.[6] Through
her comment filed on March 1, 2010,[7] the respondent denies the complaints
allegations and prays for its dismissal.
With respect to her alleged inaction on the petition for contempt
(Special Civil Action No. 194), she maintains that the summons were served on
the respondents.[8]
Eventually, the respondents filed their Answer with Affirmative Defenses and
Counterclaim,[9] but no
other pleadings followed. The respondent denies the complainants claim that he
made several follow-ups with her regarding the case.
The respondent faults the complainant
for the lack of movement in the case.
She contends that the complainant could have just filed a motion to set
the case for preliminary conference, instead of bringing an administrative
complaint against her. Be this as it may, she claims that out of consideration
to a fellow lawyer the complainants counsel, Atty. Elino C. Chin, allegedly had
been seeking treatment in
Relative to the issue on the publication
of court orders/notices, the respondent submits that the CWT is not generally
circulated in the province. According to
her, [t]he [CWT] caters only to those who buy commercial space from the
publisher for announcements and legal notices. But even to these clients, the
copies of the newspapers where the notices appear are delivered late; thus,
defeating the purpose of the requirement of publication.[10]
Attached to her comment is a list of cases where she was constrained to reset
the hearings because of the delay in the publication of court orders and notices.[11] The
respondent adds that CWT does not even have a business permit to operate in the
province.
To prove her point, the respondent made
a survey of CWTs track record in
Apart from her reservations on CWTs
capability to satisfy the requirement of publication for court orders and notices,
the respondent posits that her directives to have her orders published in a
newspaper of general circulation do not violate Presidential Decree No. 1079,
as her directives even ensure that court orders and notices are published on
time.
In a letter dated March 24, 2010[13]
to the OCA, the respondent reiterates her observation that CWT is not generally
circulated in
Acting on the OCAs report dated October
11, 2010,[14] the
Court issued a Resolution on January 10, 2011,[15]
re-docketing the case as a formal administrative complaint against the
respondent, and denying (1) the respondents request for the revocation of
CWTs accreditation, the OCA not being the proper office to address the issue,
and (2) the respondents request for exemption from publishing judicial orders/notices
in a newspaper accredited by the Executive Judge, for lack of merit. Lastly, the Court required the parties to
manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for decision on the basis
of the pleadings/records on file.
By way of a Manifestation (with Motion)
dated March 23, 2011,[16] the
respondent manifests that she is not willing to submit the case for decision
based on the pleadings. She asks instead that the case be investigated. The complainant,
on the other hand, submits the case for decision as a hearing is no longer
necessary because all the evidences for the complaint x x x are documentary,
and respondent failed to refute or rebut the same in her answer, but rather
admitted material allegations in the complaint.[17]
On June 8, 2011, the Court issued a Resolution[18]
referring the case to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation. In its
report dated August 16, 2011,[19]
the OCA informed the Court that it found no cogent reason to submit the case
for investigation (by a Court of Appeals Justice); neither did the respondent
present any compelling justification for such an investigation. It, therefore,
recommended that the case be considered submitted for decision. The Court
adopted the OCA recommendation in its Resolution dated November 14, 2011.[20]
Through another Manifestation dated
February 14, 2012,[21] the
respondent advises the Court that she is of the firm belief that the second
cause of action for ignorance of the law (non-publication of court
orders/notices in CWT) had already been passed upon by the Court (Third
Division) in its Decision in A.M. No. RTJ-11-2270.[22] Thinking
that the issue to be investigated would only be the first cause of action, she
asks for clarification on the matter.
The
Courts Ruling
We find the respondents Manifestation
of February 14, 2012 in order. Indeed, the complainants second cause of
action, emanating from the respondents directive to have court orders/notices
published in a newspaper of national circulation, had already been passed upon
by this Court in the decision above cited. Relevant portions of the decision stated:
Anent the allegations of
ignorance of the law and usurpation of authority against respondent Judge
Esidera, for issuing a directive to the petitioner in a special proceedings case
to cause the publication of her order in a newspaper of general publication,
this Office finds the same devoid of merit.
Complainant Perfecto had made a
similar allegation in OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3340-RTJ, insisting that all orders
from the courts of
x x x x
[T]hat Catarman Weekly Tribune is
the only accredited newspaper of general publication in Catarman does not bar
the publication of judicial orders and notices in a newspaper of national
circulation. A judicial notice/order may be published in a newspaper of
national circulation and said newspaper does not even have to be accredited.[23] (underscorings supplied)
We, therefore, hold that the second
cause of action had already been resolved.
On the charge of ignorance of the law, the
respondents alleged inaction on Special Civil Action No. 194 which involves a
petition for contempt, we find relevant the following evaluation of the OCA:
Contrary to the claim of complainant
Perfecto that respondent Judge Esidera did not act on Special Civil Action No.
194, records show that summons were served on the respondents in the case. However, other than the issuance of summons,
there has been no other action from respondent Judge Esidera. The contention of
respondent Judge Esidera that complainant Perfecto should have filed the
appropriate motion to set the case for hearing is not entirely accurate.
In Mely Hanson Magpali vs. Judge Moises M.
Pardo, RTC, Branch 31, Cabarroquis, Quirino (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2146; 14
November 2008), the Court held:
Respondent Judge
fell short of these standards when he failed in his duties to follow elementary
law and to keep abreast with prevailing jurisprudence. His claim that the party did not in any manner request that the case be
scheduled for hearing as provided under Rule 18, par[.] 1 of the 1997 Rules of
Civil Procedure, and that it should be the party who will ask an ex-parte
setting/scheduling of the case for its pre-trial is not exactly correct. A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, 16 August 2004 (Rule on
Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the
Conduct of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures) provides that
within 5 days from date of filing of reply, the plaintiff must promptly move
ex-parte that the case be set for pre-trial conference. If the plaintiff fails to file said motion within the given period,
the Branch COC shall issue a notice of pre-trial. The respondent Judge should
be conversant therewith. The
case has not been set for pre-trial or at least for a hearing after the filing
of the Answer dated 23 July 2007. He must know the laws and apply them
properly. Service in the judiciary
involves continuous study and research from beginning to end.[24] (italics, emphases and underscorings supplied)
In the
aforementioned case, the Court found the respondent judge guilty of Gross
Ignorance of the Law and fined him in the amount of P10,000.00.
Indeed, the respondent deserves to be
sanctioned for gross ignorance of the law. With her inaction on the petition
for contempt, she betrayed her unbecoming lack of familiarity with basic
procedural rules such as what was involved in the contempt proceedings before
her court. She should have known that
while the petitioners have the responsibility to move ex parte to have the case scheduled for preliminary conference, the
court (through the branch clerk of court) has the duty to schedule the case for
pre-trial in the event that the petitioners fail to file the motion.
The respondent cannot pass the blame for
the lack of movement in the case to her staff who, she claims, were monitoring
the case. As presiding judge, she should
account for the anomaly that since the respondents filed their answer, the
petition for contempt had been gathering dust or had not moved in the respondents
court. Clearly, the respondent fell short of the standards of competence and
legal proficiency expected of magistrates of the law in her handling of the
petition for contempt. As in Magpali v.
Pardo,[25] she
should be fined P10,000.00 for gross ignorance of the law.
In closing, it bears stressing that [w]hen the law is so elementary, not to
know it or to act as if one does not know it constitutes gross ignorance of the
law.[26]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 20, Catarman, Northern Samar, is found LIABLE for gross ignorance of the law and is fined Ten Thousand
Pesos (P10,000.00), with a stern warning against the commission of a
similar offense.
SO
ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Senior Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
JOSE Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate
Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-4; dated January 7, 2010.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Revising and Consolidating All Laws and Decrees Regulating Publication of Judicial Notices, Advertisements for Public Biddings, Notices of Auction Sales and Other Similar Notices.
[6] Rollo, p. 18.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] Supra note 7 at 22.
[11]
[12]
[13] Rollo, pp. 97-101.
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25] A.M. No. RTJ-08-2146, November 14, 2008, 571 SCRA 1.
[26] Quindoza v. Banzon, 488 Phil. 35, 40 (2004).