FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-21-004. November 18, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4980-RTJ]
AMMI RITA E. BENDERO, complainant,vs. HON. PANAMBULAN M. MIMBISA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 37, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, SOUTH COTABATO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedNovember 18, 2021which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. RTJ-21-004 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4980-RTJ] (Ammi Rita E. Bendero, complainant, v. Hon. Panambulan M. Mimbisa, Presiding Judge, Branch 37, Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, South Cotabato, respondent).
This administrative case stemmed from a Complaint 1 against Presiding Judge Panambulan M. Mimbisa (respondent) of the Regional Trial Court, General Santos City, South Cotabato, Branch 37 (RTC), for bias and partiality, and gross ignorance of the law.
Antecedents
Ammi Rita E. Bendero (complainant) instituted a civil action against her brother Armando E. Bendero for annulment of sale and transfer certificates of title (TCT), and reconveyance of real estate properties, docketed as Civil Case No. 8642. 2 Aside from Civil Case No. 8642, there were other cases between the siblings that were pending before courts, viz.: 1) Civil Case No. 878 in Branch 20, RTC of Tacurong City; 2) Criminal Case Nos. 5912 to 5916 in the Municipal Trial Court of Isulan, Sultan Kudarat; and 3) Criminal Case Nos. 53621-2-1 and 53625-2-1 in Branch 1, Municipal Trial Court in Cities of General Santos City. 3
During the mediation proceedings in Civil Case No. 8642, the parties agreed to settle all pending cases between them amicably. On February 6, 2018 mediation conference, complainant signed a Compromise Agreement 4 on the understanding that it will only be submitted before the court after the other three cases have been settled. 5
Despite the agreement of the parties, the compromise agreement was submitted to the court for approval the following day, February 7, 2018, without complainant's knowledge and consent. This prompted complainant's counsel to move 6 for the deferment of the court's action on the compromise agreement until the parties had entered an amicable settlement for the other cases. The motion was set for hearing on March 9, 2018 at 8:30 in the morning. However, respondent issued an Order 7 on March 6, 2018, and reset the hearing to April 23, 2018 at 8:30 in the morning. 8
On April 2, 2018, respondent issued a Resolution 9 approving the compromise agreement and adopting it as the judgment in Civil Case No. 8642. The resolution of the case 21 days ahead of the scheduled hearing on the motion to defer action, spurred complainant to move 10 for respondent's inhibition. Respondent recused himself from further hearing the case and also ordered the case to be re-raffled in his Order 11 dated April 25, 2018. On May 8, 2018, complainant moved for reconsideration of the April 2, 2018 Resolution. 12
On September 11, 2019, complainant filed this administrative case before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), charging respondent with bias and partiality, and gross ignorance of the law for issuing the April 2, 2018 Resolution in contravention of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary (New Code of Judicial Conduct). 13 In an Indorsement dated September 18, 2019, the OCA required respondent to comment on the complaint. 14
In his undated Comment, 15 respondent denies the charges and asserts that he was "guided both by the law and the Filipino culture of family [f]irst and the vaunted principle of [C]hristian charity and forgiveness" in resolving the case between the siblings. He explains that he approved the compromise agreement despite the pendency of complainant's motion because the Comment to the Motion to Defer 16 filed by defendant spouses Armando and Alicia Bendero had stated that Civil Case No. 878 had already been settled. He added that when he issued the subject resolution, he was hoping "that the parties will once again find a common ground to rebuild lost grounds and refurbish wounded feelings and emotions" and that the ruling "could have paved the way for the rebirth of 'family love.'" Respondent also emphasized that since he inhibited from hearing the case, he no longer has the opportunity to rectify, modify, or amend his ruling.
OCA Recommendation
In a Memorandum 17 dated September 22, 2020, the OCA found that respondent disregarded Sections 4 18 and 5, 19 Rule 15 of the Rules of Court in issuing the April 2, 2018 Resolution. 20 Respondent's disregard of the rules negated his claim of good faith. However, the OCA held that there is lack of evidence to sufficiently prove the allegations of bias and partiality. Hence, the OCA made the following recommendation:
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that:
xxx xxx xxx
2. [R]espondent Judge Mimbisa be found GUILTY of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Procedure and FINED in the amount of [P]30,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits. 21
Ruling of the Court
The administrative complaint is DISMISSED.
The Court notes that respondent retired from the service on February 8, 2019. When this administrative complaint was lodged against him on September 11, 2019, more than six (6) months had already passed since his retirement. Accordingly, the Court cannot exercise jurisdiction over the present complaint.
It is well-settled that in order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative case, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee. 22 This is because the filing of an administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the government service. 23 In Office of the Court Administrator v. Silongan, 24 the Court had succinctly enumerated the administrative complaints against judiciary officials and employees which were dismissed for lack of jurisdiction because the same were filed after the respondents had already retired from the service.
It is well-settled that in order for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative case, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the respondent public official or employee. In Re: Missing Exhibits and Court Properties in Regional Trial Court, Branch 4, Panabo City, Davao del Norte, 25 we dismissed the complaint against a respondent judge since the Memorandum recommending the filing of an administrative case against the judge was submitted by the OCA to the Court on 10 July 2012, or more than two years after the judge retired. In the similar case of Office of the Court Administrator v. Grageda, 26 the Court held that respondent judge's retirement effectively barred the Court from pursuing the administrative proceeding that was instituted after his tenure in office, and divested the Court of any jurisdiction to still subject him to administrative investigation and to penalize him administratively for the infractions committed while he was still in the service. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Andaya, 27 we likewise dismissed the administrative case against the respondent judge upon finding that the administrative complaint was docketed only on 29 April 2009, or after his compulsory retirement on 27 March 2009. The Court also dismissed an administrative case filed against a retired court stenographer for having been initiated over a month after her retirement from the service. 28
In line with these pronouncements, the Court has lost jurisdiction to discipline respondent for the infractions he allegedly committed while still a member of the bench.
WHEREFORE, the administrative complaint against retired Presiding Judge Panambulan M. Mimbisa is DISMISSED for lack of jurisdiction.
SO ORDERED." Lopez, M., J., on official leave.
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-16.
2.Id. at 4; entitled "Ammi Rita E. Bendero v. Spouses Armando E. Bendero and Alicia G. Bendero, and the Registrar of Deeds for the City of General Santos."
3.Id. at 6-7.
4.Id. at 72.
5.Id. at 7-8.
6.Id. at 73-75.
7.Id. at 80.
8.Id. at 8-9.
9.Id. at 81-82.
10.Id. at 83-84.
11.Id. at 226.
12.Id. at 9.
13. A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
14.Rollo, p. 199.
15.Id. at 200-203.
16.Id. at 77-79.
17.Id. at 232-237.
18.Hearing of motion. — Except for motions which the court may act upon without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, every written motion shall be set for hearing by the applicant.
Every written motion required to be heard and the notice of the hearing thereof shall be served in such a manner as to ensure its receipt by the other party at least three (3) days before the date of hearing, unless the court for good cause sets the hearing on shorter notice.
19.Notice of hearing. — The notice of hearing shall be addressed to all parties concerned, and shall specify the time and date of the hearing which must not be later than ten (10) days after the filing of the motion.
20.Rollo, p. 235. Citing Bautista v. Causapin, Jr., 667 Phil. 574, 591-592 (2011), which provides that:
The logic for such [the requirement of notice and hearing] is simple: a motion invariably contains a prayer which the movant makes to the court, which is usually in the interest of the adverse party to oppose. The notice of hearing to the adverse party is therefore a form of due process; it gives the other party the opportunity to properly vent his opposition to the prayer of the movant. In keeping with the principles of due process, therefore, a motion which does not afford the adverse party the chance to oppose it should simply be disregarded.
21.Id. at 237.
22.Office of the Court Administrator v. Silongan, 793 Phil. 667, 682 (2016).
23.Office of the Court Administrator v. Fuensalida, A.M. No. P-15-3290, September 1, 2020.
24.Supra note 22.
25.705 Phil. 8 (2013).
26.706 Phil. 15 (2013).
27.712 Phil. 33 (2013).
28.Id. at 682-683.