THIRD DIVISION
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2281 (Formerly OCA IPI- 10-3372-RTJ), September 16, 2019
ATTY. MARSHA B. ESTURAS, COMPLAINANT, v. JUDGE AGAPITO S. LU, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 88, CAVITE CITY, RESPONDENT.
D E C I S I O N
INTING, J.:
Before the Court is an administrative Complaint1 dated February 4, 2010 filed by complainant Atty. Marsha B. Esturas with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). In the Complaint, complainant charged respondent Judge Agapito S. Lu (now retired) with Conduct Unbecoming a Judge and Delay in the Disposition of a Case.
Complainant alleged that respondent was the Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, before whose court Civil Case No. N-8004, entitled "MRS. AGNES RAFOLS-DOMINGO, Widow of ELIODORO S. DOMINGO and representative of the legal heirs MARIA ANGELA, JOHANNA, JOSEPH all surnamed Domingo, plaintiffs vs. FLORANTE GLORIANI and GLORIA G. REYEL, defendants," was pending. Complainant is plaintiffs' counsel in the civil case. Subsequent to the filing of plaintiffs complaint on February 4, 2009, defendants moved to dismiss it on the ground of improper mode of service of summons, among others. On June 10, 2009, plaintiff filed a Manifestation with Motion to Serve Summons by Publication. On October 26, 2009, plaintiff filed a Motion to Resolve Immediately the Motion to Serve Summons by Publication.
According to complainant, respondent had been delaying the proceedings of the case as plaintiff’s motion to serve summons by publication had been pending for almost seven months as of the writing of the administrative complaint.
For his part, respondent alleged the following in his Comment and Counter-Complaint2:
Sometime during the last quarter of 2009, Atty. Marsha B. Esturas came to the office of undersigned's Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Jordan J. Teaño and personally requested that action or resolution of the pending motions in Civil Case No. N-8004 entitled Mrs. Agnes Rafols-Domingo etc., et al. vs. Florante Gloriani, et al. for Specific Performance (obviously referring to the Motion to Dismiss filed by the defendants and the Motion to Serve Summons by Publication filed by her) be deferred or held in abeyance because she was then negotiating with Atty. Arnel G. Espiritu (counsel of would-be intervenors in the case) for a possible amicable settlement of the case.x x x x
That because of the request for deferment made personally by Atty. Marsha B. Esturas, Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Jordan J. Teaño kept the records of the case in his possession while awaiting word from either Atty. Marsha B. Esturas or Atty. Arnel G. Espiritu as to the outcome of their negotiations for the amicable settlement of the case;
That during this period of waiting, my Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Jordan J. Teaño did not submit the records of the case to me, hence I did not have the opportunity to resolve the pending motions;
That it was only on April 16, 2010, after Atty. Jordan J. Teaño received word from Atty. Arnel G. Espiritu that the negotiations for amicable settlement did not prosper; that the records of the case was submitted to me;
That the undersigned immediately resolved plaintiffs' motion and Atty. Jordan J. Teaño accordingly prepared new summons, however, neither the plaintiffs nor their counsel took any action until now to effect service of summons on the defendants[.]3
In any event, even assuming that it was complainant herself who requested the deferment of the resolution of the motion, the same should have been placed on record. Ours is a court of record, and all its proceedings must be in writing. Had he advised complainant to put his request on writing, then he would not be facing this administrative charge. Assuming that the request was acceptable, then at least an order to the effect that the resolution of the case is deferred due to the verbal request of the complainant should have been made. No order was ever made, however, as admitted by Atty. Teaño.9 (Citation omitted.)
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, it is recommended that respondent Judge Agapito S. Lu be FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos. The Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Jordan J. Teaño be advised to be more circumspect in his duties as Branch Clerk of Court.
On the other hand, it is recommended that the Counter-Complaint against Atty. Marsha B. Esturas be referred to the Office of the Bar Confidant.10
6.1 All Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts.
Justice A. Reyes-Carpio: The motion to resolve was filed when? Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teaño: October, but it was set by the movant on November 3, 2009. Complainant Atty. Esturas: October 26, 2009, your Honor. Respondent Judge Lu: The hearing on the motion was set on November 3. Justice A. Reyes-Carpio: And it was set on November 3? Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teaño: Yes, your Honor. Justice A. Reyes-Carpio: What was the order issued on November #3? Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teaño: There was no hearing that took place on that day. Justice A. Reyes-Carpio: Why? Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teaño: Because Atty. Esturas came to me and asked for the deferment of the motion. Justice A. Reyes-Carpio: Because of the alleged possibility of settlement? Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teaño: Yes. Justice A. Reyes-Carpio: But there was no order to that effect upon her motion or manifestation that her motion be deferred considering that there was a possibility of settlement? There was never an order to that effect? Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teaño: No. Justice A. Reyes-Carpio: It was only, let us say, an agreement between you. Atty. Espiritu and Complainant Atty. Esturas? Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teaño: Yes, your Honor. Justice A. Reyes-Carpio: And you never conveyed this matter to the Judge? Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teaño: I cannot remember. Justice A. Reyes-Carpio: Why can you note remember? This is your case. Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teaño: Yes, your honor.23
Truly, judges play an active role in ensuring that cases are resolved with speed and dispatch so as not to defeat the cause of the litigants. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay. They must always be in control of proceedings to ensure that the mandatory periods provided in the Rules of Court and several other rules promulgated by the Court are faithfully complied with. A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. It is in this connection that we reiterate the oft-repeated maxim that justice delayed is often justice denied. Thus, any delay in the administration of justice may result in depriving the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case and will ultimately affect the image of the Judiciary. A delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice, brings the court into disrepute, and ultimately erodes public faith and confidence in the Judiciary. Inability to decide a case within the required period or unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident constitutes gross inefficiency and subjects the judge to administrative sanctions. (Citation omitted.)
Endnotes:
1Rollo, pp. 10-13.
2 Id. at 37-40.
3 Id. at 37-38.
4 Rule 1.01 – A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct.
5 Rule 10.01 – A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in Court; nor shall he mislead, or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.
6 Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall, not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
7Rollo, p. 80-81.
8 Id. at 59-75.
9 Id. at 68.
10 Id. at 75.
11 Id. at 89-92.
12 Id. at 92.
13Request of Judge Gonzales-Asdala, RTC-Br. 87, Q.C. For Extension to Decide Civil Case No. Q- 02-46950 & 14 Others, 527 Phil. 20, 23 (2006).
Also, Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution states: All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
14 Rule 1.02. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.
15 Rule 3.05. A Judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
16Atty. Sesbreño v. Judge Gako, Jr.. et al., 591 Phil. 380, 388 (2008).
17 Dated January 28, 1988.
18Rollo. p. 63.
19 Id. at 60.
20Request of Judge Gonzales-Asdala, RTC-Br. 87, Q.C. For Extension to Decide Civil Case No. Q-02-46950 & 14 Others, supra note 13 at 24.
21 Id.
22Rollo, pp. 71-72.
23 Id. at 68-70.
24 479 Phil. 255, 262 (2004).
25Request of Judge Gonzales-Asdala, RTC-Br. 87, Q.C. For Extension to Decide Civil Case No. Q-02-46950 & 14 Others, supra note 12 at 23.
26 Id. at 23-24.