8/10/2019 479 Hilado v Reyes Diploma

1/2

Hilado vs Judge Reyes

G.R. No. 163155.

July 21, 2006.

Information !!ess to Re!ords

"a!ts# During the lifetime of Roberto Benedicto, petitioners Alfredo Hilado and company filed

two complaints for damages or collection of sums of money in RTC of Bacolod City. From

anuary !""! until #o$ember !""%, the Branch Cler& of Court of Branch !' of the (anila RTCallowed petitioners through their counsel )edigo and Associates to e*amine the records of the

case and to secure certified true copies thereof. By December !""%, Atty. +race aredes, an

associate of petitioners- counsel, was denied access to the last folderrecord of the case which,

according to the court-s clerical staff, could not be located and was probably inside the chambersof public respondent for safe&eeping. etitioners- counsel re/uested udge Reyes to allow Atty.

aredes to personally chec& the records of the case. The 01C23egal Researcher told the

petitioners- counsel that udge Reyes authori4ed only the parties or those with authority from the

parties to in/uire or $erify the status of the pending case in court. They may go o$er the recordsif they are authori4ed by the administrari*, which in this case was the wife, ulia Benedicto.

1ntending to compare the list of properties in the estate-s in$entory, petitioners- counsel sent theBranch Cler& of Court of Branch !' of the (anila RTC a letter re/uesting to be furnished with

certified true copies of the 5updated in$entory6 of the properties of the deceased. And through

another letter, they re/uested to be furnished with certified true copies of the order issued by thecourt during the hearing of February '%, !""7, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes

ta&en thereon.

The respondent udge ignored the motion of inhibition filed by the petitioners- counsel onthe grounds of gross ignorance, dereliction of duty, and manifest partiality towards the

administratri*. ublic respondent issued in an order why petitioners had no standing to file the

(otion for 1nhibition as well as to re/uest for certified true copies of documents. udge said thatsince they were not allowed to inter$ene in the proceedings per order of this Court dated anuary

!, !""!, copies of all pleadings2orders filed2issued relati$e to this case may only be secured from

the administratri* or counsel.

etitioners contend that the records of the case are public records to which the public has

the right to access, inspect and obtain official copies thereof, recognition of which right is

en8oined under )ection 9, Article 111 of the Constitution and )ection !, Rule '%: and )ection '',Rule '%; of the Rules of Court. etitioners also argue that public respondent manifested her

arbitrariness, malice and partiality through her blatant disregard of basic rules in the disposition

and safe&eeping of court records, and her denial of their right to access the records suffices to bar

her from presiding o$er the case< and public respondent-s incompetence, malice, bad faith andpartiality are underscored by her failure to enforce for more than three years the re/uirement of

the Rules of Court on the prompt submission by the administratri* of her final in$entory and thefiling of a periodic accounting of her administration.

Issue#

'. =hether a writ of mandamus may issue to compel public respondent to allow petitioners to

e*amine and obtain copies of any or all documents forming part of the records of the case

repared by> ?atrina ). Diploma '

8/10/2019 479 Hilado v Reyes Diploma

2/2

Held#

'. @es

Article 111, )ection 9 guarantees a general right the right to information on matters of5public concern6 and, as an accessory thereto, the right of access to 5official records.6 The right

to information on 5matters of public concern or of public interest6 is both the purpose and thelimit of the constitutional right of access to public document.

The term 58udicial record6 or 5court record6 does not only refer to the orders, 8udgment

or $erdict of the courts. 1t includes the official collection of all papers, e*hibits and pleadings

filed by the parties, all processes issued and returns made thereon, appearances, and wordforword testimony which too& place during the trial and which are in the possession, custody, or

control of the 8udiciary or of the courts for purposes of rendering court decisions. 1t has also been

described to include any paper, letter, map, boo&, other document, tape, photograph, film, audioor $ideo recording, court reporter-s notes, transcript, data compilation, or other materials,

whether in physical or electronic form, made or recei$ed pursuant to law or in connection with

the transaction of any official business by the court, and includes all e$idence it has recei$ed in acase.

Access to court records may be permitted at the discretion and sub8ect to the super$isory

and protecti$e powers of the court, after considering the actual use or purpose for which there/uest for access is based. 1n this case, the petitioners- stated main purpose for accessing the

records is to monitor prompt compliance with the Rules go$erning the preser$ation and proper

disposition of the assets of the estate, hence they are 5interested persons6 in the case. 1f anyparty, counsel or person has a legitimate reason to ha$e a copy of court records and pays court

fees, court may not deny access to such records.

repared by> ?atrina ). Diploma !