Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
A.M. Nos. 07-115-CA-J and CA-08-46-J August 19, 2008
ATTY. VICTORIANO V. OROCIO, complainant,
vs.
JUSTICE VICENTE Q. ROXAS, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
CORONA, J.:
To be, or not to be: that is the question; x x x
For who would bear the whips and scorns of time,
Th' oppressor's wrong, the proud man's contumely,
The pangs of despised love, the law's delay, x x x1 |
Delay is the implacable foe of justice. For justice delayed is justice denied. Thus, this Court must ever be vigilant to slay the dragon of delay whenever it rears its ugly head.
We are again confronted with the problem of judicial delay in this administrative complaint for dishonesty, grave misconduct, violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and dereliction of duty against respondent Justice Vicente Q. Roxas of the Court of Appeals.
The Complaint
Complainant Atty. Victoriano V. Orocio acted as counsel for the retired employees of the National Power Corporation (NPC) in a civil case2 against the NPC in the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217.3 After the contending parties arrived at a compromise agreement, complainant filed a motion for the approval of his charging lien. Through the said motion, he sought to enforce the provision in his retainer agreement with his clients entitling him to 15% of whatever amount or value of assets that may be recovered by his clients.
Upon approval of his lien,4 complainant moved for the issuance of a writ of execution. This was granted in an order dated July 25, 2006 and a writ of execution5 and notice of garnishment6 were thereafter issued in his favor.
However, Edmund P. Angulan and Lorna T. Dy, members of the board of directors of the NPC, filed a petition for certiorari (with urgent prayer for issuance of a temporary restraining order [TRO] or writ of preliminary injunction) in the Court of Appeals. The petition, docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 95786, was raffled to the Sixteenth Division with respondent as ponente.
On August 28, 2006, a TRO was issued enjoining the implementation of the July 25, 2006 order, the writ of execution and notice of garnishment.
Meanwhile, on August 22, 2006, NPC also filed a petition for certiorari with prayer for the issuance of a TRO in the Court of Appeals. This was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 95946 and consolidated with CA-G.R. SP No. 95786.
On October 31, 2006, the Court of Appeals issued a resolution ordering the issuance of a writ of injunction in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 95786 and 95946. Complainant moved for the reconsideration of the October 31, 2006 resolution. After petitioners (in the CA) filed their comment on December 12, 2006, complainant submitted a "manifestation with urgent motion to resolve" on December 15, 2006. No action was taken on complainant’s motion for reconsideration.
On January 29, 2007, the Court of Appeals, in a decision penned by respondent, annulled and set aside the trial court’s July 25, 2006 order, July 26, 2006 writ of execution and July 28, 2006 notice of garnishment. It limited complainant’s collectible attorney’s fees to a maximum of P3,512,007.32.
On February 21, 2007, complainant moved for reconsideration of the January 29, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals. Angulan and Dy filed their comment on complainant’s motion on March 29, 2007.
Pending resolution of complainant’s motion for reconsideration, he filed this administrative complaint against respondent as ponente of the decision, assailing the January 29, 2007 decision of the Court of Appeals as "full of fabrication, distortion and misrepresentation of facts." He claimed that the attorney’s fees he was asking for was the complete and final amount of attorney’s fees due him, and that his motion for reconsideration of the January 29, 2007 decision remained unresolved as of September 24, 2007, the date he filed this complaint in the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
Respondent’s Comment
In his comment, respondent claimed that this case was simply a harassment suit filed by a losing litigant. Complainant allegedly vented his ire on him because of the significant reduction of his attorney’s fees (notwithstanding respondent’s explanation in his January 29, 2007 decision why the attorney’s fees sought by complainant were unreasonable.)
Respondent stressed that the January 29, 2007 decision was rendered by a collegiate body, not by him alone. If complainant was not satisfied with the decision, he should have appealed to this Court.
Respondent denied that he failed to resolve complainant’s motion for reconsideration. He claimed that he was a topnotcher in case disposal in the Court of Appeals and had a zero backlog of cases.
Recommendation of the OCA
In its memorandum, the OCA recommends the dismissal of the complaint for dishonesty, grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The January 29, 2007 decision was rendered by the Court of Appeals as a collegiate body, not by respondent alone. The conclusions in the said decision were reached in consultation and rendered as a collective judgment after due deliberation.7 Thus, the filing of charges of misconduct and unethical behavior against respondent was inappropriate.8 Moreover, an administrative complaint was not the appropriate remedy since judicial recourse was still available.9
The OCA also suggests the dismissal of the charge of delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration of the January 29, 2007 decision for complainant’s failure to prove the exact date when the Court of Appeals received the comment on the motion for reconsideration.
Nonetheless, the OCA opines that respondent can be held administratively liable for his failure to resolve complainant’s motion for reconsideration of the October 31, 2006 resolution ordering the issuance of a writ of injunction, as this constituted undue delay in rendering a decision or order, a less serious offense.10 It may be penalized by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.11
The OCA submits the following recommendation:
(a) the dismissal of the complaint for dishonesty, grave misconduct and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and
(b) the imposition of a P10,500 fine on respondent for his failure to resolve a motion for reconsideration, with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.
The Court’s Action
The charges for dishonesty and grave misconduct in connection with the rendition of the January 29, 2007 decision are improper. The correctness of a decision cannot be challenged in an administrative complaint against the judge who rendered it. An administrative complaint is not the proper remedy where judicial recourse is still available.12 Complainant should have challenged the correctness of the January 29, 2007 decision in a petition for review on certiorari.13 Furthermore, the said decision was rendered by the Former Sixteenth Division of the Court of Appeals, a collegial act, not respondent’s individual enterprise.14
Nevertheless, we find respondent liable for failure to resolve the motion for reconsideration of the October 31, 2006 resolution. He should also be held accountable for undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration of the January 29, 2007 decision.
While actions on motions, papers and other incidents of a case pending in the Court of Appeals are actions of that court as a collegial body, the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals provides that it is the ponente who initiates the actions on said motions, papers and pleadings.15 Hence, there can be no action on a motion, paper or any other incident except upon prior instruction of the ponente.16 He has the primary responsibility of ensuring that the pending incidents in a case assigned to him are properly and promptly acted on.
Complainant filed his motion for the reconsideration of the October 31, 2006 resolution on November 6, 2006. After petitioners filed their comment on December 12, 2006, complainant submitted a "manifestation with urgent motion to resolve" on December 15, 2006. Despite this, the motion for reconsideration remained unresolved. It is therefore reasonable to conclude that respondent, as ponente, failed to initiate any action on the said motion.
The January 29, 2007 decision is further proof that respondent totally ignored the motion for reconsideration of the October 31, 2006 resolution. While it annulled and set aside the trial court’s July 25, 2006 order, July 26, 2006 writ of execution and July 28, 2006 notice of garnishment, it never mentioned anything about the preliminary injunction sought to be reconsidered by complainant. It therefore failed to comply with Section 9, Rule 58 of the Rules of Court which provides:
Sec. 9. When final injunction granted. – If after the trial of the action it appears that the applicant is entitled to have the act or acts complained of permanently enjoined, the court shall grant a final injunction perpetually restraining the party or person enjoined from the commission or continuance of the act or acts or confirming the preliminary mandatory injunction.
With regard to the motion for reconsideration of the January 29, 2007 decision, Section 3, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides a time limit of 90 days for the Court of Appeals to resolve a motion for reconsideration.17 The period is reckoned from the date it is declared submitted for resolution, which is normally upon the filing of the last pleading required by the Rules or by the court.18
The comment on complainant’s motion for reconsideration of the January 29, 2007 decision was filed in the Court of Appeals on March 29, 2007. Complainant received his copy of the said comment (which was sent by registered mail) on April 3, 2007. Therefore, the motion for reconsideration of the January 29, 2007 decision should have been resolved on or before June 27, 2007, the 90th day from the filing of Angulan and Dy’s comment on the motion for reconsideration on March 29, 2007. However, the motion for reconsideration was resolved only on September 27, 2007 or way beyond the prescribed period. Again, the reasonable conclusion is that respondent, as ponente, failed to promptly initiate any action on the said motion.
The non-resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the October 31, 2006 resolution and the delayed resolution of the motion for reconsideration of the January 29, 2007 decision constituted undue delay in rendering a decision, order or resolution, a less serious offense under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
Moreover, the omissions of respondent violated Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.19 Judges are mandated to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. In other words, judges should never cause judicial delay.
Delay derails the administration of justice. It postpones the rectification of wrong and the vindication of the unjustly prosecuted. It crowds the dockets of the courts, increasing the costs for all litigants, pressuring judges to take short cuts, interfering with the prompt and deliberate disposition of those causes in which all parties are diligent and prepared for trial, and overhanging the entire process with the pall of disorganization and insolubility.20 More than this, possibilities for error in fact-finding multiply rapidly as time elapses between the original fact and its judicial determination. If the facts are not fully and accurately determined, then the wisest judge cannot distinguish between merit and demerit.21 If courts do not get the facts right, there is little chance for their judgment to be right.22
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC,23 this administrative case against respondent shall also be considered as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the bar.24
WHEREFORE, respondent Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas of the Court of Appeals is hereby found GUILTY of violation of Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as well as of Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary. We modify the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator so as to FINE him in the amount of P15,000, payable within ten days from his receipt of this resolution.
Justice Roxas is STERNLY WARNED that the commission of any act of impropriety in the future will merit a more severe penalty.
Let a copy of this resolution be attached to the personal records of Justice Roxas.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Carpio *, Austria-Martinez, Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Reyes, Leonardo-de-Castro, Brion, JJ., concur.
Footnotes
* On Official Leave.
1 Shakespeare, William, Hamlet, Act III, Scene 1, Lines 56-72.
2 Docketed as Civil Case No. Q-04-53121.
3 Presided by Judge Lydia Querubin-Layosa.
4 Per order dated May 15, 2006.
5 Dated July 26, 2006.
6 Dated July 28, 2006.
7 Rondina v. Bello, Jr., A.M. No. CA-05-43, 08 July 2005, 463 SCRA 1.
8 Id.
9 Bautista v. Abdulwahid, A.M. OCA IPI No. 06-97-CA-J, 02 May 2006, 488 SCRA 429.
10 Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
11 Section 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
12 Bautista v. Abdulwahid, supra.
13 Per the OCA’s memorandum, complainant filed a petition for certiorari in this Court questioning the January 29, 2007 decision on November 19, 2007.
14 See Rondina v. Bello, Jr., supra and Bautista v. Abdulwahid, supra.
15 Section 1, Rule IV (Processing of Cases and Action on Interlocutory Matters) of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals provides:
SEC. 1. Procedure in the Disposition of Pleadings, Motions and Other Papers. –
Within two (2) working days, all pleadings, motions and other papers filed with the Receiving section of the Judicial Records Division shall be entered in the docket book, stitched to the rollo of the case, paged consecutively and then forwarded to the Division Clerk of Court concerned.
If the Division Clerk of Court has no authority to act on such pleadings, motions and other papers, he shall prepare the agenda and submit the same to the Division, thru the Justice concerned, within three (3) working days from receipt of his office of the rollo, together with the pleadings, motions or other papers.
The Division Clerk of Court shall state in the agenda, with page references, the antecedents of the case which are necessary for an understanding thereof, a synopsis of the motion or incident and the opposition thereto, if any, the issues involved and his remarks or recommendations.
16 The exceptions to this rule are when the Presiding Justice may act on an urgent matter in a petition, such as an application fro a writ of habeas corpus or TRO, and there is no way of convening the Raffle Committee or calling any of its members (Section 2, Rule IV of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals); actions that may be done by the Division Clerk of Court (Section 2, Rule IV of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals) and action by a justice on a TRO or writ of preliminary injunction (Section 5, Rule VI of the 2002 Internal Rules of the Court of Appeals).
17 Section 3, Rule 52 of the Rules of Court provides:
Section 3. Resolution of motion. – In the Court of Appeals, a motion for reconsideration shall be resolved within ninety (90) days from the date when the court declares it submitted for resolution.
18 Regalado, Florenz, Remedial Law Compendium, Sixth Revised Edition, National Bookstore, Inc. p. 587.
19 SEC. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
20 Southern Pac. Transport. Co. v. Stoot, 530 S.W.2d 930, 931 (Tex. 1975).
21 Id.
22 Id.
23 Re: Automatic Conversion of Some Administrative Cases Against Justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan, Judges of Regular and Special Courts, and Court Officials Who Are Lawyers as Disciplinary Proceedings Against Them Both as Officials and as Members of the Philippine Bar. Dated September 17, 2002.
24 See Juan De la Cruz v. Carretas, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2043, 05 September 2007, 532 SCRA 218.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
