Ala v. Ramos, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Atty. Leticia E. Ala, counsel for the defendant in Civil Case No. 95-02-16, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. and Atty. Irene T. Pontejos-Cordeta, clerk of court. The case involved pending incidents, including a motion for reconsideration, a motion to cite for contempt, and a motion to reduce a bond. Judge Ramos issued an order submitting these incidents for resolution on December 8, 1998, but failed to resolve them before his reassignment in April/May 1999. During Judge Ramos's incumbency, the records of the case disappeared. Atty. Ala alleged that Judge Ramos twice admitted to having the records. Atty. Cordeta failed to include certain motions in the court's calendar. The records were eventually found to be missing, though reconstitution was ordered. Procedural History: Judge Ramos, in his Comment, admitted the submission of one motion but attributed his failure to resolve it to his reassignment and other court duties. He denied responsibility for the loss of the records, stating they were left with Branch 8. Atty. Cordeta explained the non-calendaring of motions due to the absence of a presiding judge and the court's established hearing schedule. She also asserted that Atty. Ala was aware the records were with Judge Ramos. An investigation was conducted, and the records were reconstituted. The case was ultimately disposed of by Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo, with the plaintiff's appeal being processed. The Petition: The administrative complaint sought disciplinary action against Judge Ramos for losing the case records and unduly delaying the resolution of pending incidents, and against Atty. Cordeta for failing to properly calendar motions and notify parties.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. is liable for losing the records of Civil Case No. 95-02-16. Whether Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. is liable for undue delay in resolving pending incidents. Whether Atty. Irene T. Pontejos-Cordeta is liable for failing to calendar motions and notify parties regarding the case.
Ruling
The Court resolved to fine Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement pay for losing the case records and unduly delaying the resolution of pending incidents. The complaint against Atty. Irene T. Pontejos-Cordeta was dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the liability of Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. for losing the records: The Court found substantial evidence pointing to Judge Ramos as responsible for the loss of the records. Atty. Cordeta stated that Judge Ramos took the records without permission, a practice he had of bringing records home. Atty. Cordeta's letter dated August 27, 1999, requested the return of the records, detailing searches conducted at his chambers and residence. Complainant Atty. Ala also recounted Judge Ramos admitting twice to having the records. The Court concluded that Judge Ramos was the last person in possession of the records and failed to turn them over, constituting simple misconduct. The Court cited Section 14, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court prohibiting the removal of records without court order and Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code punishing such acts. Judges are expected to exercise utmost diligence and care in handling case records. On the liability of Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. for undue delay: The Court found Judge Ramos accountable for failing to resolve the plaintiff's Second Motion for Reconsideration for an unreasonable period. The motion was submitted on December 8, 1998, but remained unresolved even after his reassignment in May 1999. The motion was only denied on May 15, 2000. The Court reiterated that additional work, such as acting as presiding judge in other courts, cannot justify such failure. It cited Casia v. Gestopa for the principle that judges should request extensions if their caseload prevents timely disposition of cases. The Court classified both offenses (loss of records and undue delay) as less serious charges under the amended Rule 140, prescribing a fine of ₱10,000.00 due to his compulsory retirement. On the liability of Atty. Irene T. Pontejos-Cordeta: The Court agreed with the investigating Justice that the charges against Atty. Cordeta should be dismissed. Regarding the first motion filed on June 2, 1999, it was submitted for action on June 14, 1999. However, no judge had yet been assigned to preside over Branch 8 on that date, as Executive Judge Lilagan only began hearing cases on June 21, 1999. Therefore, Atty. Cordeta could not calendar the motion. Furthermore, the records were already missing, and the complainant knew about it. Neither party appeared on June 14, presumably knowing there was no scheduled hearing. Concerning the second motion filed on July 19, 1999, the notice of hearing was for July 22, 1999, a Thursday, which was not a motion day for Branch 8. Executive Judge Lilagan's instructions designated Mondays and Tuesdays for Branch 8 cases and Wednesdays and Thursdays for Branch 34 cases, with Fridays for motions from both branches. Atty. Cordeta asserted that both counsels were informed of this schedule. The plaintiff's request for a hearing on July 30, 1999, for his Motion for Reconsideration was not in the notice of hearing for the Motion to Set Case for Hearing, which was for July 22, 1999. The Court found no reason for Atty. Cordeta to include the motion in the calendar for July 30, 1999, as no notice of hearing for that date was sent by the plaintiff. The Court also noted that Atty. Ala's inconvenience was attributable to her own assumption of a hearing date without proper notice. Regarding the missing records, Atty. Cordeta became aware in June 1999 and made verbal requests for their return. The Court found no practical purpose in notifying Atty. Ala at that point, as she was aware of Judge Ramos's possession of the records. The Court also found no evidence that Atty. Cordeta failed to promptly inform the presiding judge or that Executive Judge Lilagan was unaware of the situation.
Main Doctrine
A judge who loses court records and unduly delays the resolution of pending incidents is liable for simple misconduct. A clerk of court is not liable for failing to calendar motions when the court has no presiding judge or when the motion is not properly set for hearing.