Agregado v Bellosilo

8/19/2019 Agregado v Bellosilo

1/12

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. MTJ-05-1600. August 9, 2005]

SUSANA JOAQUIN VDA. DE AGREGADO, complainant , vs. Jug!EDGARDO ". "E##OSI##O, #!g$% R!s!$&'(!& I #EONI#A S.)UERTO, *%!&+ III T)ERESA T. "ANA"AN, respondents.

D E * I S I O N

*ARIO-MORA#ES, J.

By Complaint-Affidavit dated July 20 200!"#$

%&i'& %a( )e'eived *y t&e Offi'e of t&eCou)t Admini(t)ato) +OCA, on July 2 200! "2$ Su(ana Joa.uin vda/ de A)eado+'omplainant, admini(t)atively '&a)ed 1ueon City 3et)opolitan T)ial Cou)t +3eTC,B)an'& !4 #, Jude 5da)do B/ Bello(illo 2, 6eal Re(ea)'&e)-Offi'e)-In-C&a)e Cle)7of Cou)t 6eonila S/ Hue)to and !, Cle)7 III T&e)e(a T/ Bana*an in 'onne'tion %it& t&edi(po(ition of Civil Ca(e No/ 28#9# a 'omplaint fo) Sum of 3oney andDamae("!$ aain(t Jo(e 3a)'ell :anlilio et al/ all of t&e :&ilippine Villae Hotel and;)and Bouleva)d Hotel/

T&e fa't( t&at (pa%ned t&e filin of t&e p)e(ent admini(t)ative 'omplaint a)e notdi(puted/

On Septem*e) #0 2002"


2/12

Not&in &avin *een &ea)d f)om t&e defendant( 'omplainant filed on Ap)il 22 200!a 3otion fo) 5@e'ution"#0$ of t&e de'i(ion %&i'& %a( (et fo) &ea)in on Ap)il 2200!/ Copy of t&e motion %a( (ent to t&e defendant( at t&ei) iven add)e(( and %a()e'eived *y one ;i)lie An on Ap)il 2# 200!/ "##$

On Ap)il 2! 200! Atty/ Denni( ;/ 3ani'ad of t&e 3ani'ad 6a% Offi'e( %it& offi'e

add)e(( at Suite


3/12

t&e Offi'e of t&e 3ayo) Reina 3ala'a( %&o in tu)n fo)%a)ded it to )e(pondent 6ealRe(ea)'&e)-OIC B)an'& Cle)7 of Cou)t Hue)to/

On t&e ('&eduled &ea)in on June #0 200! of &e) 3otion fo) Re'on(ide)ation'omplainant %a( info)med *y )e(pondent Hue)to t&at t&e)e %a( no &ea)in on t&at dayand t&at &e) motion %a( deemed (u*mitted fo) )e(olution/ A*out a %ee7 late)

'omplainant in.ui)ed a*out t&e (tatu( of &e) 3otion fo) Re'on(ide)ation f)om)e(pondent Hue)to %&o 'laimed not &avin (een it/

Re(pondent Hue)to %a( late) to p)epa)e an undated lette) of t)an(mittal "#9$ of t&e)e'o)d of t&e 'a(e to t&e Offi'e of t&e Cle)7 of Cou)t 1ueon City Reional T)ial Cou)t+RTC,/ T&e )e'o)d of t&e 'a(e %a( a'tually t)an(mitted and )e'eived at t&e RTC onJune 2! 200!/"#8$ T&e lette) of t)an(mittal indi'ate( t&at 'opie( t&e)eof %e)e fu)ni(&ed t&eCle)7 of Cou)t of RTC 1ueon City 'omplainant( 'oun(el of )e'o)d and t&e 3ani'ad6a% Offi'e(/"20$

Complainant( 'oun(el %a( late) to )e'eive on July 8 200! a noti'e f)om t&e Offi'eof t&e Cle)7 of Cou)t of RTC 1ueon City (ettin t&e )affle of t&e appealed 'a(e on July

#= 200! &en'e a)o(e t&e p)e(ent admini(t)ative 'omplaint '&a)in

#, Re(pondent Jude of t&e follo%in offen(e( .uoted verbatim

+ 4iolation of ART. 206 of the Revised Penal Code [RPC] for rendering the

unust interlocutor& O-*- dated April 30, 2003 den&ing the motion for

e6ecution and approving the appeal after the ecision had become final and

e6ecutor&7

2+ 4iolation of ART. 20! RPC, for rendering the same O-*- dated April 30,

2003 which maliciousl& dela& the proper, effective and efficient

administration of ustice due me as he presiding part&7

3+ 4iolation of "#C. $ %e& of the Anti'(raft and Corrupt Practices Act %R.A.

$0)*! as a+ended& b& issuing his null ad void Order of April 30, 2003,

unlawfull& den&ing the e6ecution of the final and e6ecutor& udgment

and improperl& approving a farce appeal after the e6piration of the period

provided b& law( 8udge #*99OSI99O caused undue inur& to me and gave

the defendants unwarranted benefits, advantage or preference in not

obliging them to satisf& the udgments to m& preudice and damage,

showing manifest partialit& in the discharge of his udicial functions7

.+ 4iolation of "#C. ) ART. ,,, %-ill of Rihts&! of the )*/ Constitution(

In unlawfull& den&ing the e6ecution of the final and e6ecutor& udgment,

and undul& approving the improper appeal therefrom, through his null and

void O-*- dated April 30, 2003!8udge #*99OSI99O, in effect, deprived

me of m& right to the fruits of the verdict without due process of law7

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/am_mtj_05_1600.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/am_mtj_05_1600.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/am_mtj_05_1600.htm#_ftn20http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/am_mtj_05_1600.htm#_ftn18http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/am_mtj_05_1600.htm#_ftn19http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2005/aug2005/am_mtj_05_1600.htm#_ftn20


4/12

5+ or his +anifest inorance of the la1! Presidin Jude -#3",3

co++itted violations of %a& R5# ).0) and R5# ).02 of CA3 )

%Code of Judicial Conduct& providin that A 7ude should 8e the

e+8odi+ent of co+petence! interit9 and independence! and A 7ude

should ad+inister 7ustice i+partiall9 and 1ithout dela9: %8& Rule $.0)

of CA3 $'providin that A 7ude shall 8e faithful to the la1 and

+aintain professional co+petence: %c& R5# $.02 of CA3 $'

en7oinin that ,n ever9 case! a 7ude shall endeavor dilientl9 to

ascertain the facts and the applica8le la1 uns1a9ed 89 partisan

interest! ; ; ;: and %d& R5# $.0* of CA3 $ %on Ad+inistrative

Responsi8ilities& providin that A 7ude should orani


5/12

5( e or oversiht on the part of

the undersigned( Instead of reconing the 5 da&s reglementar& period from

the date of receipt of the defendants counsel, it should be the date of receipt

b& the defendant ;anlilio7

=( $ad the said missing motion for reconsideration brought to the attention of the

undersigned, the mistae could have been rectified or corrected(

Constitution(

6 6 6 he assailed order was issued on the belief of the undersigned that it

was the proper order to be issued then( It is liewise not amiss to point out

that due process was afforded to both parties especiall& the complainant)Agregado+7

0( 9astl&, plaintiff also charged the undersigned for violation of a+ -ule (0 and

-ule (02 of Canon 7 b+ -ule 3(0 of Canon 37 c+ -ule 3(02 of Canon 37 d+

-ule 3(0: of Canon 3( he undersigned in handling cases before his sala tries


6/12

and decides them fairl& and udiciousl& based on facts and applicable laws

unswa&ed b& partisan interest(

In resolving plaintiffs motion for e6ecution and defendants notice of appeal,

the undersigned was scrupulousl& careful to avoid such action as seasonabl&

tend to awaen the suspicion that m& actuation was tainted b& malice and badfaith( he Supreme Court in the case of i'on v( #ora )Adm( Case /o( =3!8,

8anuar& 2, :>+, 8ustice %aalintal categoricall& stated that? to hold a udge

administrativel& accountable for ever& erroneous ruling or decision he

renders, assuming that he has erred, would be nothing short of harassment and

would mae his position unbearable7

( 4iewed from the foregoing facts, the complaint at bar, if ever understood, is


7/12

nelect( he Cop& of ransmittal Order was given to the mailing!in!charge

on 8une 23, 2003(

6 6 6

( hat when I noticed that said %otion was not transmitted to the Office of theCler of Court, -egional rial Court, @ue'on Cit&, I immediatel& informed

the Civil Case In!Charge %s( -egina %alaas ) sic+ that we have to forward

theB %otion for -econsideration to the Cler of Court of the -egional rial

Court, @ue'on Cit&7

:( hat on 8une 23, 2003, said %otion for -econsideration together with other

voluminous files were placed in m& table including records submitted for

decisions, resolutions and other motions7

6 6 6

( hat when I returned from the seminar on %onda&, 8une 30, 2003, I noticed

that some records submitted for resolutions, decisions and other motions

were disarranged and that some of the records including the %otion for

-econsideration were no longer in its proper place7

2( hat from then on, I have not seen the %otion for -econsideration7

6 6 6

20( hat said failure to transmit the %otion for -econsideration was due to

certain unavoidable circumstances, but certainl& and definitel&, not intended

to remove, destruct or suppress the said %otion for -econsideration7

6 6 6 )*mphasis and underscoring supplied+

A( fo) &!s74!4t *%!&+ III-*33% *$s!-34-*($&g! T(!&!s$ "$4$8$4 (&e *ylette) of Septem*e)


8/12

motion fo) e@e'ution and t&at a %)it of e@e'ution %a( i((ued %&i'& %a( late) implemented *y t&e B)an'& S&e)iff to t&e (ati(fa'tion of 'omplainant/

In t&e (ame 3anife(tation and 3otion )e(pondent Jude att)i*ute( &i( *einimpleaded in t&e p)e(ent 'omplaint to t&e fault of )e(pondent Hue)to %&o(e 'laim of &avin fo)%a)ded t&e 3otion fo) Re'on(ide)ation to &im %a( *elied *y )e(pondent

T&e)e(a Bana*an %&o 'laimed t&at Hue)to %a( in po((e((ion of t&e 3otion fo) Re'on(ide)ation *efo)e it %a( lo(t/

By Re(olution of Ap)il 200


9/12

tainted with bad faith, fraud, dishonest& or corruption, it is not fair and ust that he

should be held liable for an& of the offenses as charged b& complainant against him in

the instant administrative matter( )


10/12

Court( he rule provides that within fifteen )5+ da&s from the perfection of the

appeal, the cler of court shall transmit the original record together with the

transcripts and e6hibits which he shall certif& as complete, to the proper -egional

rial Court( he appeal in Civil Case /o( 2: was not &et perfected in view of the

pending motion for reconsideration( As alread& discussed in the foregoing, the record

of the case that was transmitted on 8une 23, 2003 b& respondent OIC $uerto tothe-C was not complete( ue to her own fault she did not include as part of the

record the plaintiffs motion for reconsideration( Indeed, on the same date, 8une 23,

2003, the motion for reconsideration was on her table but without an order resolving

the motion for she never referred the motion to the respondent udge( 6 6 6

)


11/12

Clea)ly )e(pondent Jude %a( )emi(( in o*(e)vin t&e 'a)e and dilien'e e@pe'tedof &im in t&e di('&a)e of &i( dutie(/

A( fo) )e(pondent Hue)to t&e Cou)t Admini(t)ato)( a*ove-.uoted evaluation of and'on(e.uent )e'ommendation in t&e 'a(e aain(t &e) i( %ell-ta7en/

Re(pe'tin )e(pondent Cle)7 III Bana*an t&e Cou)t Admini(t)to)( follo%inevaluation of and 'on(e.uent )e'ommendation in t&e 'a(e aain(t &e) i( li7e%i(e %ell-ta7en/

As against respondent heresa #anaban, the complaint alleged that she was the one

who confirmed the setting of the hearing at 2?00 p(m( on 8une 20, 2003 as approved

b& OIC!#ranch Cler of Court 9eonila $uerto( *ven if true, there is nothing wrong

about that confirmation( In her Comment, respondent #anaban stated that the motion

for reconsideration did not pass through her and that she had no participation in an&

office wor related to the appeal( Said respondent #anaban should be e6onerated(

&ile t&i( Cou)t ta7e( note of t&e Cou)t Admini(t)ato)( app)e'iation in )e(pondentJude( favo) &i( di(po(ition %it& di(pat'& of 'omplainant( 'a(e and t&e a*(en'e of any(&o%in of *ad fait& f)aud di(&one(ty o) 'o))uption in &i( a'tuation( &e (&ould *eadmoni(&ed fo) failin a( )efle'ted a*ove to o*(e)ve t&e 'a)e and dilien'e )e.ui)ed of &im in t&e pe)fo)man'e of &i( dutie(/

)ERE:ORE )e(pondent Jude 5da)do B/ Bello(illo i( &e)e*y AD3ONISH5D too*(e)ve t&e 'a)e and dilien'e )e.ui)ed of &im in t&e pe)fo)man'e of &i( dutie( a( a

?ude/

Re(pondent 6eal Re(ea)'&e)-Offi'e)-in-C&a)e B)an'& Cle)7 of Cou)t 6eonila S/Hue)to i( &e)e*y fo) (imple nele't of duty SES:5ND5D fo) One +#, 3ont& and One+#, Day/

Re(pondent Cle)7 III T&e)e(a T/ Bana*an i( &e)e*y e@one)ated and t&e 'a(eaain(t &e) i( a''o)dinly DIS3ISS5D/

SO ORDERED.

Panganiban, (Chairman), Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Garcia, JJ., 'on'u) .Corona, J., on leave/

"#$ Rollo at #-4/

"2$ bid.

"!$ d. at 9-##/

"


12/12

"=$ d. at #

Documents

Agregado v Bellosilo