EN BANC
A.M. No. MTJ-17-1894 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-2355-MTJ], April 04, 2017
ROGER RAPSING, Complainant, v. JUDGE CARIDAD M. WALSE-LUTERO, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BR. 34, QUEZON CITY [NOW PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BR. 223, QUEZON CITY] AND CELESTINA D. ROTA, CLERK OF COURT III, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BR. 34, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
LEONEN, J.:
In the February 22, 2011 Amended Affidavit-Complaint,1 Roger Rapsing (Rapsing) accused Presiding Judge Caridad M. Walse-Lutero (Judge Walse-Lutero) of Branch 34, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City of undue delay in resolving two (2) motions filed by his counsel in Civil Case No. 06-35758, entitled Roger Rapsing v. Spouses Eddie and Luzviminda Rapsing, for Ejectment.
The motions were: (1) Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Admission dated August 15, 2008 and filed on August 20, 2008;2 and (2) Motion to Inhibit dated July 24, 2008 and filed on July 25, 2008.3
The Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Admission arose from the January 17, 2008 Order of respondent Judge Walse-Lutero denying complainant's motion to correct the pre-trial order.4 Complainant moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the respondent judge in an Order dated July 4, 2008, prompting complainant to file a Motion to Inhibit on July 25, 2008.5
During the hearing of the Motion to Inhibit on August 15, 2008, the matter of the denial of the motion to correct the pre-trial order was also discussed.6 Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero informed complainant's counsel that the proper remedy to remove the supposed admission of his client as contained in the pre-trial order was to file a withdrawal of admission and not correction of the pre-trial order.7 Consequently, it was agreed upon that the resolution of the motion to inhibit shall be held in abeyance pending the filing of the proper motion.8 The Motion to Withdraw Admission was subsequently filed on August 20, 2008,9 and was deemed submitted for resolution in the Order dated September 12, 2008.10 Considering that the motion had remained unresolved for a considerable length of time, complainant argued that respondent Judge Walse-Lutero should be held liable for undue delay.11
Rapsing's Affidavit-Complaint was docketed as OCA I.P.I. No. 11-2355-MTJ. In First Indorsement12 dated April 8, 2011, Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez referred the complaint to Judge Walse-Lutero for comment.
On April 18, 2012, the Office of the Court Administrator received respondent Judge Walse-Lutero's Comment.13
Judge Walse-Lutero denied delaying the resolution of the motions.14 She explained that the Branch Clerk of Court failed to return the record of the case to her for the resolution of the motions.15 Respondent averred that she discovered the unresolved motions only in March 2011, when her staff, upon coming from the Supreme Court, informed her of the present administrative complaint.16
Respondent added that Ms. Shernalyn Mallari-Carian (Carian), the Docket Clerk-in-Charge, reasoned her being new in her post when queried for failure to refer the record of Civil Case No. 06-35758 to respondent Judge Walse-Lutero.17 Carian averred that the former Clerk-in-Charge turned over all the records of the civil cases to the Branch Clerk of Court Ms. Celestina Rota (Rota).18 Carian pointed out that complainant had been following up the case with Rota.19 For her part, Rota admitted that "even with the intermittent follow-up of the herein parties in this case, [she] failed to refer the case to [respondent Judge Walse-Lutero] for resolution of the pending incident due to the volume of civil cases also for decision."20
Judge Walse-Lutero further affirmed that "[u]pon receipt of the record, [she] discovered that it was badly damaged by rain water that leaked through [the court's] ceiling."21 When she asked Rota why the latter did not inform her about the damage or ask the parties to replace the drenched documents, Rota merely shrugged and said, "[K]aya nga judge."22 Nonetheless, Judge Walse-Lutero alleged that after the record was reconstituted, she promptly resolved all pending incidents and rendered her decision in the subject case.23
Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero revealed that with the 3,800 cases she inherited from the previous presiding judges, as well as the 80 to 130 cases that were raffled to her branch on a monthly basis, "it [was] impossible for [her] to monitor each and every case before [the] court."24 Therefore, she "had to rely on [Rota] to inform [her] of cases that require[d] prompt action."25 Unfortunately, Rota had been greatly remiss in the performance of her duties. For instance, when respondent Judge Walse-Lutero took over, she discovered that almost 200 cases with pending motions or submitted for decision were bundled with archived ones.26 Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero consistently gave "unsatisfactory" ratings to Rota and once raised the issue of her incompetence before then Court Administrator Jose P. Perez.27 Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero was advised by the Office of the Administrative Services of the Office of the Court Administrator to direct Rota "to explain why she should not be dropped from the service."28 Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero did as instructed and Rota had the audacity to reply: "Ibalato mo na sa akin itong rating judge."29 Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero has since submitted several memoranda to the Office of the Court Administrator requesting to drop Rota from the rolls.30
Lastly, respondent Judge Walse-Lutero had to attend to her cancer stricken husband and son from 2009 to 2011.31 Despite this domestic concern, she claimed that she made every effort to bring down the court's caseload, which included virtually taking over Rota's workload.32 The court's caseload when she first took over was 3,800 cases, which she lowered to 2,800 cases in her first year.33 The court's caseload is now between 1,900 to 2,100 cases, depending on the number of cases raffled to the court every month.34
Considering Judge Walse-Lutero's explanation, particularly her averments regarding Rota's neglect, this Court resolved to furnish Rota with copies of the Affidavit-Complaint and of the Comment of Judge Walse-Lutero dated April 16, 2012.35 This Court equally decided to require her to explain "why she should not be administratively held liable for gross neglect of duty."36
On February 29, 2016, the Office of the Court Administrator received Rota's comment.37
Rota attributed her "neglect/omission/lapse" to the high caseload of the court, particularly in criminal cases.38 She added that the number of court personnel in her branch was not proportionate to the court's caseload.39
This problem was allegedly aggravated by leaves of absence by court personnel due to personal sickness, sickness or death in the family, maternity leave, retirement, and "recall of the assisting/detailed clerk by the mother unit [Office of the Clerk of Court.]"40
Rota also explained that the case record got wet during the Typhoon Ondoy through a leak in the roof.41 She allegedly apologized for it, and rectified the damage by working on Saturdays.42
Finally, on the high volume of cases, Rota explained that while both civil and criminal cases were equally important, the court gave priority to criminal cases especially those involving detention prisoners.43
The Office of the Court Administrator, in its Memorandum44 dated August 5, 2016, recommended the dismissal of the case against Judge Walse-Lutero, with a reminder for her "to be more meticulous and zealous in organizing and supervising the work of her subordinates."45
Regarding Rota, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Rapsing's complaint be docketed as a separate administrative matter against her for gross neglect of duty.46 The Office of the Court Administrator found Rota negligent in her handling of the record of Civil Case No. 06-35758.47 It also took into account the previous instances wherein Rota was sanctioned48 for negligence in the performance of her duties, and Rota's indifference in complying with the Court's directives for her to file a comment.49 However, considering Rota's 20 years in government service, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended her suspension for six (6) months instead of dismissal from service.50
We find Judge Walse-Lutero liable for neglecting her duty to resolve motions expeditiously. On the other hand, we agree with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator that Rota is guilty of gross neglect of duty.
SECTION 11. Sanctions. —
. . .
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
Branch clerks of court must realize that their administrative functions are vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. They are charged with the efficient recording. filing and management of court records, besides having administrative supervision over court personnel. They play a key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under one pretext or another. They must be assiduous in performing their official duties and in supervising and managing court dockets and records. On their shoulders, as much as those of judges, rest the responsibility of closely following development of cases, such that delay in the disposition of cases is kept to a minimum.74 (Citations omitted)
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence 'refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but wilfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected. It is the omission of that care that even inattentive and thoughtless men never fail to give to their own property.' It denotes a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness of a person to perform a duty. In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. 84 (Emphasis in the original, citation omitted)
[A]s ranking officers of our judicial system who perform delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice, they should perform their duties with diligence and competence in order to uphold the good name and integrity of the judiciary, and to serve as role models for their subordinates.94
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2 Id. at 3.
3 Id.
4 Id. at 2-3.
5 Id. at 3.
6 Id. at 51.
7 Id.
8 Id.
9 Id. at 3.
10 Id. at 45.
11 Id. at 2.
12 Id. at 48. The First Indorsement mistakenly state that Judge Caridad Walse-Lutero was of Branch 24 instead of Branch 34, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City.
13 Id. at 50-A-55.
14 Id. at 52.
15 Id. at 51.
16 Id. at 51-52.
17 Id. at 52.
18 Id.
19 Id.
20 Id.
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Id.
24 Id.
25 Id.
26 Id. at 54.
27 Id. at 53.
28 Id.
29 Id.
30 Id.
31 Id. at 54.
32 Id.
33 Id.
34 Id.
35 Id. at 84.
36 Id.
37 Id. at 90-91.
38 Id. at 90.
39 Id.
40 Id.
41 Id.
42 Id.
43 Id. at 90-91.
44 Id. at 95-101.
45 Id. at 101.
46 Id.
47 Id. at 99.
48 1) Re: Report of Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy. Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 34, Quezon City, about the Loss of Certain Valuables and Items within the Court Premises, 567 Phil. 183 (2008) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division]. Rota was suspended for three (3) months for simple neglect of duty; and
2) Arevalo v. Loria, 450 Phil. 48 (2003) [Per J. Vitug, First Division]. Rota was fined in the amount of P1,000.00 for negligence in not issuing summons.
49Rollo, pp. 99-100.
50 Id. at 100.
51Cueva v. Villanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 9 (1999) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
52Unitrust Development Bank v. Caoibes, Jr., 456 Phil. 676, 682 (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc].
53 612 Phil. 8 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
54 Id. at 9.
55In Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 45, Urdaneta City, Pangasinan, and Report on the Incident at Branch 49, Same Court, 654 Phil. 240, 254 (2011) [Per J. Bersamin, Third Division].
56Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Doyon, 592 Phil. 235, 247 (2008) [Per J. Austria-Martinez, Third Division]; Manzon v. Perello, 472 Phil. 384, 389 (2004) [Per J. Vitug, Third Division]; Visbal v. Judge Buban, 443 Phil. 705, 709 (2003) [Per J. Sandoval-Gutierrez, Third Division]; V.C. Ponce Co., Inc. v. Eduarte, 397 Phil. 498, 517 (2000) [Per Ynares-Santiago, First Division]; Cueva v. Villanueva 365 Phil. 1, 9 (1999) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
57Rollo, p. 45.
58 Id. at 3 and 46-47.
59 Id. at 52.
60 Id. at 54.
61 ld. at 53.
62 Id. at 54.
63 Id.
64 Id.
65Office of the Court Administrator v. Acampado, 721 Phil. 12, 31-32 (2013) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
66Re: Failure of Former Judge Antonio A. Carbonell to Decide Cases Submitted for Decision and to Resolve Pending Motions in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 27, San Fernando, La Union, 713 Phil. 594, 597-598 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
67 387 Phil. 644 (2000) [Per J. Quisumbing, En Banc].
68 Id. at 656.
69Pichon v. Judge Rallos, 444 Phil. 131 (2003) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
70 Id. at 136.
71 Id.
72Rollo, p. 52.
73 Id.
74Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, Malabon City, 612 Phil. 8, 34 (2009) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
75Rollo, p. 53.
76 Id. at 54.
77 Id. at 53.
78 Id. at 90.
79Marquez v. Pablico, 579 Phil. 25, 31 (2008) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division].
80Office of the Court Administrator v. Cinco, 610 Phil. 40, 48 (2009) [Per J. Carpio Morales, Second Division].
81Reyes v. Pablico, 538 Phil. 10, 20 (2006) [Per J. Carpio, Third Division].
82Alleged loss of various boxes of copy paper during their transfer from the Property Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), to the various rooms of the Philippine Judicial Academy, 744 Phil. 526, 537-538 (2014) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc].
83 G.R. No. 208979, September 21, 2016 < http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/pdf/web/viewer.html?file=/jurisprudence/2016/september2016/208979.pdf > [Per J. Del Castillo, Second Division].
84 Id. at 19.
85Rollo, p. 100.
86 Id. at 99.
87 450 Phil. 48 (2003) [Per J. Vitug, First Division].
88 Id. at 58-59.
89 Id.
90 567 Phil. 183 (2008) [Per J. Quisumbing, Second Division].
91 Id. at 184-185.
92 Id. at 187-188.
93 Id. at 188.
94 Id.
95Rollo, p. 53.
96Paa v. Remigio, 177 Phil. 550, 556 (1979) [Per J. Guerrero, First Division].
97 CONST. (1987), art. XI, sec. 1.
98Office of the Court Administrator v. Hon. Tormis, 706 Phil. 113, 137 (2013) [Per Curiam, En Banc].
99Rollo, p. 86.
100 Id. at 86-87.
101 Id. at 88-89.
102 CODE OF CONDUCT FOR COURT PERSONNEL, Canon 4, sec. 1, requires that "[c]ourt personnel shall at all times perform official duties properly and with diligence. They shall commit themselves exclusively to the business and responsibilities of their office during working hours."
103 2011 REVISED RULES ON ADMINISTRATIVE CASES IN THE CIVIL SERVICE, Rule 10, sec. 46(A)(2) provides that gross neglect of duty is a grave offense punishable by dismissal from service.
104Ganzon v. Arlos, 720 Phil. 104, 119 (2013) [Per J. Bersamin, En Banc]; Buenaventura v. Mabalot, 716 Phil. 476, 499 (2013) [Per J. Mendoza, Third Division].