FIRST DIVISION
[OCA IPI No. 12-3868-RTJ. August 20, 2014.]
JK FARM, INC., REPRESENTED BY BENITO L. VALDEZ, petitioner, vs. JUDGE TITA MARILYN P. VILLORDON, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 224, QUEZON CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated August 20, 2014 which reads as follows:
"OCA IPI No. 12-3868-RTJ (JK Farm, Inc., represented by Benito L. Valdez vs. Judge Tita Marilyn P. Villordon, Regional Trial Court, Branch 224, Quezon City). — This case stemmed from Civil Case No. Q-09-65859 captioned Thick and Thin Agri Products, Inc. v. JK Farm, Inc. wherein the herein complainant is the respondent in the said case for Replevin. It was raffled to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 224 presided by herein respondent Judge Tita Marilyn P. Villordon (Judge Villordon). After hearing, respondent Judge Villordon issued an Order 1 granting the application for Replevin on November 25, 2009.
On December 1, 2009, Thick and Thin Agri Products, Inc. (TTAPI) filed a Motion for Assistance in the Implementation of the Writ of Replevin 2 praying that the Branch Sheriff, Deputy Sheriff IV Godofredo T. Munieza, Jr. (Sheriff Munieza, Jr.) be assisted by Sheriffs Edmundo Raquid (Sheriff Raquid), Raymond Buenaventura and Alejandro Cruz, Jr. (Sheriff Cruz, Jr.) in the implementation of the writ.
On December 3, 2009, respondent Judge Villordon issued an Order 3 directing the issuance of a Writ of Replevin in favor of TTAPI. The Order, however, denied TTAPI's Motion for Assistance in the Implementation of the Writ of Replevin. Accordingly, on even date, a Writ of Replevin 4 was issued by Atty. Arnaldo C. Mendieta (Atty. Mendieta), Clerk of Court V of the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 224.
At the time of the implementation of the writ, Sheriff Munieza was accompanied by elements of the Pililia Police and assisted by some of the court's personnel. Also, Sheriffs Raquid and Cruz, Jr., were present thereat. In his Sheriff's Report 5 dated December 9, 2009, Sheriff Munieza, Jr. claimed that he has no knowledge that the two sheriffs would be there and that he was surprised by their presence thereat.
On June 8, 2010, complainant JK Farm, Inc. (JK Farm) filed with the RTC of Quezon City a Petition to Declare Sheriffs and Plaintiff's Representative in Contempt of Court 6 which was raffled to Branch 97, docketed as Civil Case No. Q-10-67262. Upon motion, the RTC of Quezon City, Branch 97, presided by Judge Bernelito R. Fernandez, issued an Order 7 dated September 21, 2010 directing that the records of Civil Case No. Q-10-67262 be forwarded to the Clerk of Court of the RTC, Branch 224 for consolidation with Civil Case No. Q-09-65859. Civil Case No. Q-09-65859, however, was withdrawn in view of the compromise agreement entered into by the parties.
In its petition, complainant JK Farm alleged that despite the December 3, 2009 Order of respondent Judge Villordon denying their request for assistance of Sheriffs Raquid and Cruz, Jr. in the implementation of the writ, TTAPI still sought the assistance of the two Sheriffs in the implementation of the writ on December 4, 2009.
On December 7, 2011, respondent Judge Villordon issued a decision 8 (subject decision) finding Charlie Hsieh, Jack Hsieh, Deputy Sheriffs Raquid and Cruz, Jr. guilty of direct contempt of court for defying the court's Order dated December 3, 2009 and ordered them to pay a fine of six thousand pesos (P6,000.00) each. The Petition for Indirect Contempt, however, against Sheriff Munieza, Jr. was dismissed for lack of merit.
On December 19, 2011 or 12 days later, complainant JK Farm filed an Urgent Motion to Render Decision 9 on its Petition to Declare Sheriffs and Plaintiff's Representative in Contempt of Court which was declared submitted for decision on September 9, 2011. The Motion was noted by respondent Judge Villordon on December 23, 2011.
On January 11, 2012, complainant JK Farm's counsel received a certified true copy of the subject decision of respondent Judge Villordon.
Upon receipt of the subject decision, complainant JK Farm raised the suspicion that the subject decision was antedated by respondent Judge Villordon to avoid administrative liability for failing to render decision within the 90-day period prescribed by the rules. It argued that the subject decision was mailed only on January 5, 2012 or 29 days after it was rendered, and that it received the subject decision only on January 11, 2012, 35 days from the time it was rendered. Furthermore, complainant JK Farm argued that the certified true copy thereof was made only on January 3, 2012 or 28 days from the date of the subject decision. Moreover, complainant JK Farm alleged that the notation of respondent Judge Villordon with her initials "12-23-11" on the Urgent Motion to Render Decision only shows that there was indeed no decision yet on the matter on that date. Based on these suspicions, it filed the instant Administrative Disciplinary Complaint 10 against respondent Judge Villordon, docketed as OCA IPI No. 12-3868-RTJ. ECHSDc
In the First Indorsement11 dated April 4, 2012, respondent Judge Villordon was directed to file her Comment within 10 days from receipt thereof.
In compliance thereof, respondent Judge Villordon filed her Comment 12 on May 4, 2012. Respondent Judge Villordon claimed that the subject decision certified on January 3, 2012 and registered/mailed on January 5, 2012 simply shows the respective dates when the same was certified and mailed. That alone does not prove the suspicion of complainant JK Farm that the said decision was antedated.
On October 14, 2013, the Court issued a Resolution 13 wherein it resolved to refer the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Villordon to be raffled among the Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation. After raffle, the case was assigned to Associate Justice Amelita G. Tolentino (Justice Tolentino).
In her report and recommendation dated March 27, 2014, Justice Tolentino found the instant administrative charge against respondent Judge Villordon unwarranted. She stated that the reasons behind the filing of this administrative case were dubious, not to mention that the grounds relied upon by complainant JK Farm in support thereof were patently malicious, flimsy, and baseless.
After a careful review, this Court agrees with the recommendation of Justice Tolentino to dismiss the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Villordon for lack of merit.
The Constitution provides that all lower courts must decide or resolve cases or matters brought before them three months from the time a case or matter is submitted for decision. 14 Similarly, the Code of Judicial Conduct also directs judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. 15
In the present case, the records show that a decision was rendered by respondent Judge Villordon on complainant JK Farm's Petition to Declare Sheriffs and Plaintiff's Representative in Contempt of Court on December 7, 2011, 89 days from the submission of the case. A copy thereof was mailed on January 5, 2012, over 29 days after the rendition of the subject decision. Clearly, the subject decision was issued within the 90-day period prescribed by the rules.
On the issue on the delay in the release of the subject decision, respondent Judge Villordon explained that it was merely due to clerical inadvertence. According to her, because of the holidays and personal problems of the clerk-in-charge, several decisions and orders issued for the months of October, November, and December were mailed only on January 5, 2012. This matter was sufficiently explained by respondent Judge Villordon during the February 7, 2014 hearing, thus:
J. TOLENTINO
So what are the pieces of evidence that your are submitting to this Court?
RESPONDENT JUDGE
Well, of course my comment, Justice, and then the affidavit because I still believe that, as my Branch Clerk has already stated earlier, there are just circumstances like clerical inadvertence and it is not as if it was really the intention or there was malice or bad faith on my part to do this or if ever they see it that way, as we heard, the counsel stated when he said that when this document pass through the Judge or when it was mailed at this time, it is evidence enough that she antedated. I hope they would just look into the records in all of the courts that I've been and see if ever I've done this. There are just circumstances, holidays, and some problems with the civil-in-charge. I think there are some decisions, orders in November that she was not able to mail and she just mailed it all in January 5 because of, for one reason or another, we cannot ask her already what happened.
J. TOLENTINO
Are you now saying to this Court that your clerk-in-charge is inefficient?
RESPONDENT JUDGE
Well, just for that day there were 91 cases that were mailed. That would include orders, resolutions and decisions dated October, November, but it should also be understood that the processes in the court are different like once it gets out from the time the decision has been rendered to the time it goes to the Branch Clerk to the time it goes to the in-charge up to the time when the person is supposed to prepare the mail and also will collate, you know it's a tough process. You may say that these are just very routinary but there is a process to be followed and at that time there were holidays and some personal problems probably with the clerk[-]in-charge then; we just have to understand, Justice, but it has never been the intention of the Court and I would include my staff to have any delay, to delay whatever is due to all of these litigants. We exert all efforts to be able to come up with the best service that we can to all the stakeholders [of] the Court. 16
Nonetheless, Atty. Mendieta affirmed and corroborated respondent Judge Villordon's testimony during the hearing that the subject decision was decided by respondent Judge Villordon on December 7, 2011. During the said hearing, Atty. Mendieta stated: AaECSH
Q Did you know personally that a decision had already been rendered by the Judge, the respondent Judge on December 7, 2011 when in this Urgent Motion to Render Decision she was merely placing "noted" with her initial 12-23-11?
A I know for a fact that the Decision dated December 7, 2011 was decided by her on that day. The notation, I would not know. That is her prerogative to put the notation on the subject pleading. 17 (Emphasis ours)
In support of Atty. Mendieta's allegations, she executed an Affidavit 18 supporting respondent Judge Villordon's claim that the subject decision was not antedated and on the contrary, it was rendered within the 90-day period prescribed by the rules. In his Affidavit, Atty. Mendieta claimed that respondent Judge Villordon disposed of the court's business promptly and that she rendered the subject decision within the required period as clearly shown on the record. In the said Affidavit, Atty. Mendieta declared that:
xxx xxx xxx
13. The Honorable Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon apparently administered justice impartially without delay when the subject Decision held two sheriffs and two representatives of Thick & Thin Agri-Products, Inc. In Contempt of Court to satisfy the prayer of herein complainant in his petition; and
14. Finally, the Honorable Tita Marilyn Payoyo-Villordon, likewise disposed of the Court's business promptly considering the underlying circumstances, through the Clerk-In-Charge, and she rendered the subject Decision within the required period as clearly shown on the record. 19 (Emphasis ours)
As correctly observed by the Investigating Justice, a gap of few days from the date of the subject decision and the date of mailing is a weak circumstance from which a conclusion of antedating may be drawn. Respondent Judge Villordon's explanation that the mailing of the subject decision was not promptly done because of clerical inadvertence is very plausible. "In the face of a weak accusation, such explanation must be considered sufficient to dismiss the charge." 20 Furthermore, the delay in the mailing of the subject decision does not, in any way, prove that it was antedated by respondent Judge Villordon.
Moreover, this Court likewise finds no merit with complainant JK Farm's allegation that since respondent Judge Villordon placed the word "noted" with her initials "12-23-11" in the former's Urgent Motion to Render Decision, it only means that a decision has not yet been rendered on that date. Based from the records, respondent Judge Villordon sufficiently explained such notation, stating that it has been her practice or style to note all motions that enter her chambers. During the hearing, respondent Judge Villordon testified that:
"I usually note all, . . . motions that really enter the chambers but I was sure then that it has already been decided. Now what the Branch Clerk usually do is he would refer all the motions received for the day to the Judge. Of course, they're living (sic) it outside the room of the Judge and then it will be later on brought in by the Utility or the Process Server for the Judge to look into and probably that was — I don't know if I was on leave then but the point is it was only on the 23rd probably that I saw this, but as the record will show, I noted it on the 23rd. That was the last working day and it was Christmas season so I just noted all because as I've said I usually dispose all documents. As much as possible, I always want that all pleadings and all documents in my room be disposed of or be acted upon, but 19 is a Monday; that was the Christmas Party of the staff. The SOP is that he would refer these motions to the Judge meaning[,] he files it up after they submit it to him, place it outside where they usually place all incoming documents and then it would only be the time, the following day or the day after that it will be entered into my room and I was able to note it probably on the 23rd. That would explain the "noted" there, Justice. That is already an SOP for me that I note all motions and I'm aware of that." 21
This Court likewise agrees with the observation of the Investigating Justice that mere suspicion that a judge allegedly committed an antedating of the decision because of the questionable circumstances perceived by the counsel surrounding the date of its rendition and delivery is not enough ground to file an administrative case against the judge. There should be evidence to prove the charge, which is obviously absent in the case at bar. 22
"It is likewise well-settled that in administrative proceedings, the burden of proof that respondents committed the acts complained of rests on the complainant." 23 In the instant case, complainant JK Farm failed to provide competent proof or substantial evidence supporting its allegation that respondent Judge Villordon antedated her decision. Thus, the administrative charge against respondent Judge Villordon should be dismissed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Tita Marilyn P. Villordon is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit."
SO ORDERED." VILLARAMA, JR., J., on leave; PERALTA, J., acting member per S.O. No. 1750 dated August 11, 2014. TSHcIa
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) EDGAR O. ARICHETADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1. Rollo, pp. 39-40.
2. Id. at 83-84.
3. Id. at 85.
4. Id. at 41.
5. Id. at 86-87.
6. Id. at 19-28.
7. Id. at 59.
8. Id. at 119-122.
9. Id. at 115-117.
10. Id. at 1-18.
11. Id. at 123.
12. Id. at 124-128.
13. Id. at 137.
14. 1987 PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 15, Paragraph 1.
15. CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT, Canon 3, Rule 3.05.
16. TSN, February 7, 2014, pp. 36-37.
17. Id. at 33.
18. Rollo, pp. 142-143.
19. Id. at 143.
20. Reyes v. Judge Paderanga, 572 Phil. 27, 35 (2008).
21. TSN, February 7, 2014, p. 35.
22. Report and Recommendation of Justice Amelita G. Tolentino, March 27, 2014, p. 15.
23. Rivera v. Judge Mendoza, 529 Phil. 600, 606 (2006), citing P/Supt. Barcena v. Judge Gingoyon, 510 Phil. 546, 555 (2005).