THIRD DIVISION
[A.C. No. 12501. August 14, 2019.]
GERARD VICTOR H. MILAN, complainant, vs.ATTY. MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTO, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedAugust 14, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.C. No. 12501 (Gerard Victor H. Milan, complainant, vs. Atty. Ma. Lourdes C. Perfecto, respondent). — In his handwritten Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Paghahabla1 dated February 27, 2019, Gerard Victor H. Milan (complainant) sought the disbarment of Atty. Ma. Lourdes C. Perfecto, Assistant Clerk of Court of the Second Division of this Court (respondent), for allegedly conniving ("kontsabahan") with the members of the Second Division in dismissing:
(i) OCA IPI No. 13-4122-RTJ (Gerard Victor H. Milan vs. Presiding Judge Rose Marie Manalang-Austria);
(ii) A.C. 9845 (Gerard Victor H. Milan vs. Atty. Josef Albert T. Comilang, et al.); and
(iii) OCA IPI No. 17-4759-RTJ (Gerard Victor H. Milan v. Presiding Judge Rose Marie Manalang-Austria, et al.).
According to complainant, on September 29, 2015, he filed an administrative complaint against the members of the Second Division for dismissing the aforesaid cases despite the fact that they are supported with sufficient evidence. However, instead of requiring the members of the Second Division to file their comment, respondent outrightly dismissed his administrative complaint. Worse, the members of the Second Division continued to act on the cases notwithstanding the pendency of the administrative case he filed against them.
Complainant also alleged that respondent totally ignored the September 24, 2018 letter (Annex "C" of complainant's Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Paghahabla) of Emiliano Anthony Kenneth Z. Lejano III, then Chief Justice Staff Head, "endorsing" to respondent his letter seeking reconsideration of the dismissal of OCA IPI No. 13-4122-RTJ. Hence, he was constrained to submit that "endorsement" to the Court so that it can be considered in the resolution of OCA IPI No. 13-4122-RTJ. However, the members of the Second Division still dismissed that case, betraying their vindictive attitude after he filed an administrative complaint against them.
Complainant further averred that in its Resolution dated November 19, 2018, the members of the Second Division did not only dismiss the administrative case he filed in OCA IPI No. 17-4759-RTJ; they also directed him to show cause why he should not be cited in contempt of court. Their action, to complainant's mind, was calculated to dissuade him from pursuing the administrative complaint filed against them. Said Resolution also mentions about a Report dated September 14, 2018 of the Office of the Court Administrator, when none was attached thereto and, hence, such statement was intended only to mislead him.
In her Comment2 dated July 16, 2019, respondent prayed for the dismissal of the disbarment complaint filed against her. She explained that the abovementioned cases filed by complainant were all dismissed in three separate resolutions issued by the Second Division. She emphasized that these resolutions are legitimate actions of the Second Division and that complainant's allegation of connivance is baseless and malicious.
Respondent admitted that complainant administratively charged the members of the Second Division for grave abuse of discretion after they dismissed his administrative complaint in OCA IPI No. 13-4122-RTJ. Nonetheless, the Second Division merely noted complainant's administrative charge against its members.
With regard to complainant's allegation that the members of the Second Division were no longer required to comment to have his administrative complaint immediately dismissed, respondent argued that such postulation of the complainant evinces his miserable lack of knowledge of the Court's internal rules.
The Court's Ruling
This complaint patently lacks merit.
It is settled that the quantum of proof required in administrative cases is that of substantial evidence or that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. 3 It is also a basic legal precept that he who alleges must prove; 4 and that mere allegation, by itself, would not be given weight because it does not amount to evidence. 5
In the present case, a punctilious review of complainant's two-page handwritten Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Paghahabla reveals that his allegations are baseless and too sketchy. They are even scurrilous and borders on contempt of court.
Complainant's bare allegation that he has strong evidence to support his administrative charge is not sufficient. It is a self-serving statement that cannot be believed hook, line, and sinker. There must be a supporting actual proof. The Court has carefully examined the annexes of complainant's Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Paghahabla and there is nothing therein that would support his allegations that respondent connived with the members of the Second Division, that they directed him to show cause to dissuade him from pursuing the administrative case against them, or that they were misleading him. Annex "A" thereof is a photocopy of a page of an unknown logbook purporting to show that on September 28, 2015, the Second Division received complainant's Letter-Complaint. It would, therefore, stretch the credulity of this Court to believe that Annex "A" is pertinent or relevant to complainant's allegation of connivance, dissuasion, or misleading.
Annex "C" on the other hand, is an endorsement letter forwarding the letter of complainant to the office of the respondent for appropriate action. Apparently, complainant misunderstood its context. For his information and guidance, Annex "C" does not deal with the merit or demerits of any case. It does not say that his letter seeking reconsideration should be granted or denied. Neither Mr. Emiliano Anthony Kenneth Z. Lejano III nor respondent has the authority to do that. They cannot influence or dictate the members of this Court as to how they would or should handle and dispose of their cases. In fine, Annex "C" is simply a letter of transmittal forwarding to the Second Division complainant's letter so that it can be acted upon accordingly. Nothing more.
With regard to Annex "B" (photocopy of the February 26, 2018 Resolution of the Second Division of this Court in A.C. No. 9845) and Annex "D" (November 19, 2018 Resolution of the Second Division of this Court in OCA IPI No. 17-4759-RTJ), the same can only establish what they purport to be. This Court need not recite the details of these annexes because their originals are part of the records of this Court that have already been taken judicial notice of.
Anent complainant's insinuation of vindictiveness, suffice it to state that his penchant for filing baseless and malicious complaints indeed borders on contempt of court. This Court though chooses to take a compassionate stance in this case considering that complainant is not represented by lawyer and, quite obviously, totally ignorant of the rules of procedure and proper decorum to be observed in courts. Complainant is thus advised that if he truly believes in the merits of his cases, he should secure the services of a legal counsel who can assist him in pursuing them before the proper forum and in accordance with the rules. This Court cannot always tolerate his transgressions of the rules and disrespectful attitude, for the Court's compassion and patience are not without limitations. When abused, it will not hesitate to exercise its contempt powers and penalize those who are guilty of misbehavior and disrespectful conduct before it.
In any case, if only to disabuse complainant's mind, the Court will bend over backwards. For his enlightenment and benefit, this Court will recapitulate its consistent ruling that the Supreme Court is not duty-bound to render signed decisions at all times. It has the discretion to release its actions or dispositions on cases through minute resolutions to save time that could be devoted in analyzing cases and formulating decisions and orders of important nature and character. 6 This policy was thoroughly explained in Borromeo vs. Court of Appeals. 7 Thus:
The Court reminds all lower courts, lawyers, and litigants that it disposes of the bulk of its cases by minute resolutions and decrees them as final and executory, as where a case is patently without merit, where the issues raised are factual in nature, where the decision appealed from is supported by substantial evidence and is in accord with the facts of the case and the applicable laws, where it is clear from the records that the petition is filed merely to forestall the early execution of the judgment and for non-compliance with the rules. x x x
For a prompt dispatch of actions of the Court, minute resolutions are promulgated by the Court through Clerk of Court, who takes charge of sending copies thereof to the parties concerned by quoting verbatim the resolution issued on a particular case. It is the Clerk of Court's duty to inform the parties of the action taken on their cases by quoting the resolution adopted by the Court. The Clerk of Court never participates in the deliberations of a case. All decisions and resolutions are actions of the Court. The Clerk of Court merely transmits the Court's action. x x x
Minute resolutions need not be signed by the members of the Court who took part in the deliberations of a case nor do they require the certification of the Chief Justice. For to require members of the Court to sign all resolutions issued would not only unduly delay the issuance of its resolutions but a great amount of their time would be spent on functions more properly performed by the Clerk of Court and which time could be more profitably used in the analysis of cases and the formulation of decisions and orders of important nature and character. Even with the use of this procedure, the Court is still struggling to wipe out the backlogs accumulated over the years and meet the ever increasing number of cases coming to it. x x x 8
Reiterating this policy in Agoy vs. Araneta Center, Inc., 9 the Court pronounced that adjudication of a case by minute resolution is an exercise of judicial discretion and constitutes sound and valid judicial practice. In that case, a minute resolution was issued dismissing therein petitioner's petition for review on certiorari. Doubting the veracity of the minute resolution since it did not contain the signature of any of the members of this Court, the petitioner sought its rescission and for his case to be resolved on the merits via a regular resolution or decision signed by the Justices who took part in the deliberation. In denying the motion, the Court held that:
One. The notices of the minute resolutions of June 15 and September 21, 2011 sent to Agoy, bearing the signatures of Assistant Clerk of Court Teresita Aquino Tuazon and Deputy Division Clerk of Court Wilfredo V. Lapitan, both printed on pink paper and duly received by counsel for petitioner as evidenced by the registry return cards, are authentic and original copies of the resolutions. The Court has given Tuazon and Lapitan the authority to inform the parties under their respective signatures of the Court's actions on the incidents in the cases.
Minute resolutions are issued for the prompt dispatch of the actions of the Court. While they are the results of the deliberations by the Justices of the Court, they are promulgated by the Clerk of Court or his assistants whose duty is to inform the parties of the action taken on their cases by quoting verbatim the resolutions adopted by the Court. Neither the Clerk of Court nor his assistants take part in the deliberations of the case. They merely transmit the Court's action in the form prescribed by its Internal Rules:
Sec. 7. Form of notice of a minute resolution. — A notice of minute resolution shall be embodied in a letter of the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court notifying the parties of the action or actions taken in their case. In the absence of or whenever so deputized by the Clerk of Court or the Division Clerk of Court, the Assistant Clerk of Court or Assistant Division Clerk of Court may likewise sign the letter which shall be in the following form:
(SUPREME COURT Seal)
EN BANC/____ DIVISION
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court en banc/___ Division issued a Resolution dated______, which reads as follows:
"G.R./UDK/A.M./A.C. No. ___ (TITLE). — (QUOTE RESOLUTION)"
Very truly yours,
CLERK OF COURT/Division Clerk of Court 10
Similarly, in this case, respondent had no participation as to how the members of the Second Division arrived at its resolutions in OCA IPI No. 13-4122-RTJ, A.C. No. 9845 (Annex "B") and OCA IPI No. 17-4759-RTJ (Annex "C"). She merely followed the rules and performed her ministerial duty when she signed the notices of resolutions. Had complainant carefully examined Annex "B" of his Sinumpaang Salaysay ng Paghahabla, he would have readily noticed that it is denominated as "Notice" (and not "Resolution"). Its first paragraph states: "Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated26February 2018which reads as follows:" In other words, Annex "B" is a notice containing in quotation the resolution of the Court.
In sum, there is no sufficient basis to hold respondent liable for the charges unjustly hurled against her.
ACCORDINGLY, this disbarment complaint against Atty. Ma. Lourdes C. Perfecto is hereby DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 1-2.
2.Id. at 11-14.
3.Office of the Court Administrator vs. Lopez, 654 Phil. 602, 607 (2011).
4.Lagman vs. Pimentel III, G.R. Nos. 235935, 236145 and 236155, February 6, 2018.
5.ECE Realty and Development, Inc. vs. Mandap, 742 Phil. 164, 171 (2014).
6.Cojuangco, Jr. vs. Philippine Coconut Authority, G.R. No. 218679 (Notice), April 18, 2016.
7. 264 Phil. 388 (1990).
8.Id. at 393-394.
9. 685 Phil. 246 (2012).
10.Id. at 249-250.