The following were filed with the Office of the Court Administrator:
1. VERIFIED COMPLAINT dated January 18, 2008 (with enclosures) of Atty. Rafael T. Martinez and Dan and Edna Reyes charging Judge Grace Gliceria F. De Vera, [Presiding Judge of] MTCC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan with Gross Ignorance of the Law relative to Civil Case No. MTCC-1613 entitled "Letecia Samera vs. Sps. Dan Reyes and Edna Reyes."
Complainants narrated that they are defendants in Civil Case No. MTCC-1613 for ejectment with damages heard before the sala of the respondent judge. Complainant Atty. Rafael T. Martinez was their counsel of record.
After the termination of the preliminary conference, the complainant averred that respondent issued a pre-trial order directing the parties to submit their position paper within ten (10) days from receipt of the pre-trial order. The pre-trial order was received by complainant Atty. Rafael T. Martinez on November 21, 2007. Hence, they have until December 1, 2007 within which to file their position paper. However, since the last day of filing falls on Saturday, the complainants filed their position paper together with their evidence by registered mail on December 3, 2007.
Complainant Martinez narrated that on December 28, 2007, his attention was called by Ms. Yolanda Basa, the Clerk of Court of the MTCC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan about the order promulgated by the respondent denying the admission of the position paper of the complainants on the ground that the same was filed out of time. On the same day, his wife informed him that a certain "JR" of the MTCC delivered the order of the court dated December 12, 2007. On January 2, 2008, complainant Martinez filed, by registered mail, a motion for reconsideration.
On January 6, 2008, complainant Martinez received the adverse decision dated December 28, 2007 in favor of the plaintiff therein.
The complainants claimed that the respondent judge, in denying the admission of their position paper and the evidence attached to it, is obviously ignorant of the basic and elementary provision of the rules. They also abhorred the hastily [sic] rendition of decision of the respondent judge. The said decision of the respondent judge is unjust because it was rendered in violation of the complainants' substantive right to be heard and to present evidence.
Finally, the complainants contended that the respondent judge, who has shown her inability to observe a very simple and elementary provision of the rules and her disposition to trample upon the rights of litigants, should not be allowed to stay in her lofty position which requires competence, impartiality and probity.
2. COMMENT dated April 23, 2008 (with enclosure) of respondent Judge Grace Gliceria F. De Vera.
In her Comment dated April 23, 2008, the respondent judge contended that the administrative complaint lodged against her is devoid of merit and is meant to harass her when she rendered an adverse Decision dated December 28, 2007 against the complainant[s] Dan & Edna Reyes in Civil Case No. MTCC-1613.
She denied that she gave instructions to serve the extra copy of the Order dated December 12, 2007 at the residence of complainant Atty. Martinez. She averred that she does not even know the residence of the latter. This was later corroborated by Mr. Austria Jr., when he admitted in front of his other officemates on March 4, 2008, that it was his own idea to serve the extra copy of the Order dated December 12, 2007 at the house of the complainant Atty. Martinez.
The respondent asserted that the copy of the Order dated December 12, 2007 was sent to the complainant Atty. Martinez on December 17, 2007 as evidenced by Registry Receipts [sic] No. 893 dated December 17, 2007 and not on December 28, 2007 as claimed by the complainants.
Anent the early resolution of the MTCC Case No. 1613, the respondent judge contended that it is in compliance with her duty to promptly decide a case within the period required by law. She claimed that there is nothing wrong if a judge renders judgment on the day after the case is submitted for resolution.
The respondent argued that the complainants' position paper dated December 3, 2007 is a mere rehash of the Answer with Counterclaim dated July 18, 2007. Assuming that she committed a mistake in the computation of the period, the respondent claimed that said error was made in good faith and done without any malice, corrupt motives or improper considerations since the complainants submitted their position paper on the twelfth (12) day, not the tenth (10) day.
OTHER RELEVANT INFORMATION: The respondent assails the conduct of the complainant Atty. Martinez in filing what she claims as unfounded administrative complaint and prayed that complainant Atty. Martinez be held responsible, as member of the BAR, for violating his oath and the Canons of Professional Responsibility.
3. REPLY TO THE COMMENT dated May 8, 2008
The complainants, in their reply to the comment of the respondent judge, disagreed with the contention of the respondent judge that she should not be subject to disciplinary action for the error she allegedly commits in the absence of malice, fraud, dishonesty or corruption. They asserted that the respondent judge failed to consider the basic and elementary provision of Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court. The complainants continued to cite several instances to show that the respondent judge has a continuing pattern of committing legal error. Lastly the complainants averred that the explanation proffered by the respondent judge should never be allowed.1
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our recommendation that the instant complaint against Judge Grace Gliceria F. De Vera [of] MTCC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan be REDOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; and that the respondent judge be found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and be FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (PHP10,000.00) Pesos with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.9
Section 9. How to compute time. - x x x If the last day of the period, as thus computed, falls on a Saturday, a Sunday, or a legal holiday in the place where the court sits, the time shall not run until the next working day.
Thus, respondent thought all along that the Position Paper was filed personally by complainants on December 6, 2007 [date of receipt of the Position Paper by the trial court], or on the 15[th day from receipt of the complainants of the Order dated November 5, 2007 on November 21, 2007. The record, when forwarded to the undersigned, prior to the release of the interlocutory order dated December 12, 2007 denying the Position Paper of the complainants shows only Registry Receipt No. 8677, showing that the complainants have sent Atty. Juvy F. Valdez, counsel for the plaintiffs, through registered mail on December 3, 2007 the said position paper. For this reason, the respondent, in good faith, denied the said Position Paper for being filed out of time. Good faith is a defense in a charge of gross ignorance of the law.17
You should be more circumspect in the performance of your duties. Your failure to attach the mailing envelope in the record shows that you failed to apply appropriate measure[s] to ensure that all pertinent documents are securely attached thereto to the record of MTCC No. 1613.
This led to the filing of the administrative case against the undersigned when the Position Paper was denied as the undersigned thought that the said pleading was filed personally by the complainants on the 15[th day, not on the 10[th day as mandated.
You are, likewise expected to discharge your duty of keeping court records with care, efficiency and professionalism. Proper and efficient court management is a judge's responsibility. But while I have supervision over you, I cannot be expected to constantly check on your performance of your duties.
As your superior, I have a right to expect that all mailing envelopes are stitched to the record. You are hereby reprimanded for this negligence. A repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.25
- In the said rejoinder, the respondent asseverated among others that no envelope showing that the position paper the complainants filed in Civil Case No. 1613 was sent by registered mail on December 3, 2007;
- Recently, an employee of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Carlos City, Pangasinan, the court being presided by the respondent handed to the undersigned a xerox copy of the envelope of the said position paper, the said xerox copy of the said envelope is hereto attached as Annex "A";
- Today, the undersigned went to the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of San Carlos City, Pangasinan for the purpose of securing a certified xerox copy of the said envelope;
- The undersigned was able to talk with Mrs. Yolanda Basa, the Clerk of Court of the MTCC, San Carlos City, Pangasinan. In the course of the said conversation, the undersigned informed Mrs. Basa of his intention to secure a certified xerox copy of the envelope;
- Mrs. Basa informed the undersigned that the said envelope is in the possession of the respondent judge;
- The said envelope is a vital piece of evidence considering that the respondent is claiming in her rejoinder that the complainants are lying when they stated in their complaint that their position paper was filed in December 3, 2007;
- The said envelope would clearly show that the position paper was mailed in Dagupan City on December 3, 2007;
- There is a need for the Honorable Court to safeguard the integrity of the present proceedings by not allowing any of the parties to suppress a vital piece of evidence. Hence, the Honorable Supreme Court should order the respondent to surrender the envelope to the Honorable Court and once the envelope is surrendered, the same be considered as part of the evidence for the complainants;
- The undersigned complainant, due to oversight, failed to attach to the copy of the position paper submitted as an annex to the complaint the original copy of the registry receipt of the said position paper;
- He is submitting herewith the original copy of the said registry receipt bearing the number 8679[.]27
Endnotes:
* Designated additional member per Special Order No. 933 dated 24 January 2011.
1 Rollo, pp. 609-611.
2 Id. at 1-6.
3 Id. at 112.
4 Id. at 114-116.
5 Id. at 196-203.
6 Id. at 210-265.
7 Id. at 473-506.
8 Now Supreme Court Justice.
9 Rollo, p. 612.
10 Id. at 628.
11 Id. at 639-743.
12 Id. at 1528.
13 Id. at 1529-1538.
14 Id. at 1553-1558.
15 Id. at 1677-1706.
16 Id. at 1688.
17 Id. at 1689-1690.
18 Id. at 1597-1598.
19 Id. at 1712-1713.
20 Under Chapter VII, D.2 of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, Clerk III Soriano had the following functions:
2.1.12.1. Receives and dockets cases filed with the Court;
2.1.12.2. Receives and records all pleadings, documents and communications pertaining to the Court;
2.1.12.3. Refers to the Clerk of Court or Branch Clerk of Court all cases, pleadings, documents and communications received;
2.1.12.4. Takes charge of all mail matters and maintains a systematic filing of criminal, civil, special civil actions, land registration and administrative cases;
2.1.12.5. Maintains and keeps custody of record books on pending cases, record book on disposed cases, books on appealed cases;
2.1.12.6. Checks and verifies in the docket book applications for clearances and certifications;
2.1.12.7. Prepares weekly reports to the court on the status of individual cases;
2.1.12.8. Checks and reviews exhibits and other documents to be attached to records on appeal;
2.1.12.9. Keeps record book on warrants of arrest issued, record book on accused persons who are at-large, and record book on judgment against bail bonds;
2.1.12.10. Prepares subpoenas, notices, processes, and communications for the signature of the Judge and/or the Clerk of Court;
2.1.12.11. Releases decisions, orders, processes, subpoenas and notices as directed by the Judge or Clerk of Court by delivering them in addressed envelopes and with return cards to the process server for service or mailing; and
2.1.12.12. Performs other duties that may be assigned to him.
21 Rollo, pp. 1714-1716.
22 Id. at 1719-1720.
23 Id. at 1725-1727.
24 Id. at 1730-1732.
25 Id. at 1731-1732.
26 Id. at 1529-1534.
27 Id. at 1529-1531.
28 Rule 3.08, Code of Judicial Conduct.
29 Lumbos v. Baliguat, A.M. No. MTJ-06-1641, 27 July 2006, 496 SCRA 556, 573 (citations omitted).
30 Rule 3.09, Code of Judicial Conduct.
31 Nidua v. Lazaro, A.M. No. R-465 MTJ, 29 June 1989, 174 SCRA 581, 586.
32 De Vega v. Asdala, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1997, 23 October 2006, 505 SCRA 1, 5 citing De Guzman v. Pamintuan, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1736, 26 June 2003, 405 SCRA 22.