Osorio v. Dizon
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Eusebio Osorio, a plaintiff in Civil Case No. Q-95-24507, initiated this complaint against Judge Agustin S. Dizon and Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Reza M. Casila-Derayunan of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 80, Quezon City, for grave misconduct and oppression. The underlying dispute stemmed from a decision rendered on July 22, 2002, against the plaintiffs, including Osorio and his co-plaintiffs, Spouses Danilo and Rosita Amor. Procedural History: Following the trial court's decision, a notice of appeal was filed by Atty. Florentino L. Quendangan on August 26, 2002. Judge Dizon gave due course to the appeal on September 25, 2002, ordering the transmittal of records to the Court of Appeals. However, the records were not forwarded. On May 23, 2003, co-plaintiff Danilo Amor filed a motion to withdraw the appeal, citing the death of his wife and lack of interest from other plaintiffs. Judge Dizon initially granted this motion on June 4, 2003. Subsequently, Amor filed a motion to withdraw his earlier motion. Defendants, Spouses Narciso and Linda Badua, opposed this withdrawal. Judge Dizon then set the incident for hearing on August 28, 2003, and set aside his June 4, 2003 order. The defendants later withdrew their opposition, and Judge Dizon ordered the transmittal of the records to the Court of Appeals on November 11, 2003, which occurred on November 13, 2003. The Petition: Complainant Osorio alleges that the eleven-month delay in transmitting the records to the appellate court violated the Rules, constituting a means for defendant Narciso Badua to influence co-plaintiff Amor to withdraw the appeal. Osorio claims Judge Dizon granted the withdrawal motion without affording him and his lawyer an opportunity to comment and acted with bias. The complaint further asserts that the judge should not have acted on the motion after the thirty-day period for transmittal had lapsed. The petition seeks disciplinary action against the respondents for their alleged misconduct and oppression.
Issue(s)
Whether the Branch Clerk of Court was remiss in her duty for failing to transmit the records of the case to the Court of Appeals within the prescribed period. Whether the Presiding Judge committed grave misconduct or oppression in granting the motion to withdraw the notice of appeal without giving the complainant and his counsel an opportunity to be heard. Whether the Presiding Judge exhibited bias in setting the motion for withdrawal of the withdrawal of appeal for hearing.
Ruling
The Court found the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Reza Casila-Derayunan, remiss in her duty and ordered her to pay a fine of ₱1,000.00. The Court admonished Judge Agustin S. Dizon for his failure to exercise due care in the performance of his judicial functions, specifically in handling the motion to withdraw the appeal. The Court found no proof of bias against the judge.
Ratio Decidendi
On the Branch Clerk of Court's failure to transmit records: The Court held that Atty. Casila-Derayunan was remiss in her duty under Section 10 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which mandates the clerk of court to transmit appealed records within thirty days after perfection of the appeal. The records show the appeal was given due course on September 25, 2002, but the records were not transmitted within the 30-day period. Her explanation of a heavy workload, while mitigating, did not excuse her failure to perform her duties. The filing of Danilo Amor's motion did not exculpate her, as eight months had already passed without transmittal when the motion was filed. The Court emphasized that the clerk of court is an essential officer whose prompt and orderly transmittal of appealed cases is vital for the speedy administration of justice. On the Judge's action on the motion to withdraw appeal: The Court found the complainant's claim that the judge violated the Rules by acting on the motion after the perfection of appeal to be untenable. Rule 41, Section 9 of the Rules of Court explicitly states that prior to the transmittal of the original record, the court may still exercise residual jurisdiction, including allowing the withdrawal of an appeal. At the time Amor's motion was filed, the records had not yet been forwarded to the appellate court, thus the judge did not exceed his jurisdiction. However, the Court found fault in the judge's treatment of the motion as non-litigated and granting it without a hearing. Since other plaintiffs, like Osorio, could be prejudiced, the judge should have set the motion for hearing to give them a chance to be heard or required their comment. This failure to exercise due care warranted an admonition. On the alleged bias of the Judge: The Court found no proof to substantiate the complainant's allegation of bias against the respondent Judge for setting the hearing of Amor's subsequent motion to withdraw the earlier motion and the opposition thereto. The Court reasoned that since the judge had initially granted the withdrawal of the appeal, the subsequent motion to withdraw that withdrawal could prejudice the defendants' rights. Therefore, setting it for hearing to allow both parties to ventilate their positions was justified. The complainant's mere suspicion of bias without proof was insufficient for disciplinary action.
Main Doctrine
A Clerk of Court is remiss in her duty for failing to transmit appealed records within the prescribed period, and a Judge may be admonished for failing to exercise due care in handling motions that affect parties' rights, particularly by not setting litigated motions for hearing.