Bellena v. Perello
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Complainants, as plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 01-268, filed an action for Illegal Eviction/Demolition, Loss of Property and Damages, Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, Relocation/Restitution/Benefits, with Prayer for Lis Pendens and Other Relief against CST Enterprises, Inc. and others. The underlying dispute stemmed from an unlawful detainer case where the Metropolitan Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) ordered the eviction of the complainants, leading to the demolition of their shanties. Complainants then filed the aforementioned civil case seeking damages for their alleged illegal eviction and demolition. 2. Procedural History: The respondent judge, Norma C. Perello, granted CST Enterprises, Inc.'s motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 01-268 on November 22, 2001, and denied the complainants' motion for reconsideration on January 28, 2002. Complainants filed a Notice of Appeal on February 2, 2002, which the respondent judge gave due course on March 6, 2002. However, the records of the case were transmitted to the Court of Appeals only on December 12, 2002, nearly nine months later. This delay prompted the filing of an administrative complaint against the respondent judge. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of P20,000.00. The case was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and referred to the Court of Appeals for investigation. 3. The Petition: The complainants administratively charged Judge Norma C. Perello with gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression, alleging deliberate and malicious delay in transmitting the records of their appeal, thereby frustrating their quest for an expeditious resolution. They prayed for appropriate disciplinary sanctions. The Investigating Justice recommended dismissal of the charges of gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression, but found the respondent judge guilty of undue delay in transmitting the records, recommending a fine of P20,000.00 and an admonition to faithfully observe judicial conduct rules regarding prompt transmittal and supervision of court personnel.
Issue(s)
Whether the delay in the transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 to the Court of Appeals constitutes gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, or oppression on the part of the respondent judge. Whether the respondent judge is liable for undue delay in transmitting the records of Civil Case No. 01-268; and the appropriate penalty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Judge Norma C. Perello guilty of undue delay in transmitting the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 to the Court of Appeals and imposed a fine of P20,000.00. She was also admonished to faithfully observe the mandate of Canon 3, Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The charges of gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression were dismissed for lack of factual and legal bases.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression: The Court held that for a judge to be liable for gross ignorance of the law, the error committed must be gross or patent, deliberate, and malicious. The pertinent rule, Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, primarily assigns the duty of verifying and transmitting records to the clerk of court. While a judge can direct the clerk of court to act, the evidence did not show that the respondent judge acted deliberately, maliciously, or in bad faith. Her prompt action on the notice of appeal and the subsequent motion for transmittal indicated no intent to delay. There was no showing that the respondent judge deliberately committed an act resulting in the delay. Her immediate action on the appeal and the motion for transmittal negated any intent to delay or oppress. Rulings against complainants in a previous case did not automatically amount to partiality or oppression. The Court emphasized that specific acts indicative of arbitrariness or prejudice must be shown, which were absent in this case. Therefore, the charges of gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression were dismissed for lack of factual and legal basis. On the charge of undue delay in transmitting records and the appropriate penalty: The Court agreed with the Investigating Justice that the delay of almost nine months was extraordinary and appalling. While the clerk of court is primarily responsible for the transmittal, the judge has the administrative responsibility under Rule 3.09, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to organize and supervise court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business. The respondent judge failed to take appropriate measures to ensure prompt transmittal and did not adequately supervise her clerk of court. Her excuse of the clerk's incompetence was insufficient, as she is responsible for the management of her court. The Court noted that this laxity was similar to a previous incident where she was reprimanded for inadequate supervision. The delay eroded public faith in the justice system, warranting accountability. The Court found undue delay in transmitting records to be a less serious offense under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Considering the circumstances, a fine of P20,000.00 was deemed an appropriate penalty. The admonition to faithfully observe Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct was also imposed to ensure better court management and prompt administration of justice.
Main Doctrine
A judge is accountable for the undue delay in transmitting records of appealed cases, even if the delay is caused by the clerk of court, as the judge has the administrative responsibility to supervise court personnel and ensure the prompt dispatch of judicial business.