SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-11-2258. September 10, 2012.]
ELADIO PERFECTO, complainant, v. JUDGE ALMA CONSUELO DESALES-ESIDERA, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 10 September 2012which reads as follows:
A.M. No. RTJ-11-2258 (Eladio Perfecto v. Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera). — This is a motion for reconsideration of this Court's Decision dated June 20, 2012, finding respondent Judge Alma Consuelo Desales-Esidera, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Catarman, Northern Samar, liable for gross ignorance of the law and was fined P10,000.00.
The decision upheld the charge of the publisher and editor-in-chief of the Catarman Weekly Tribune, complainant Eladio D. Perfecto, against the respondent for her failure to act within a reasonable period of time on the petition to cite for contempt he filed on July 29, 2008 against one Dalmacio Grafil and a Ven S. Labro. The respondent tried to avoid liability by shifting the blame on the complainant for the lack of movement in the case (Special Civil Action No. 194). She explained that summonses were served on Grafil and Labro who eventually filed their answer, but no other pleadings followed.
The respondent bewailed the filing of the complaint against her, contending that the complainant could have just filed a motion to set the case for preliminary conference. In any event, she argued that she withheld action on the petition out of consideration for the complainant's counsel who had been seeking treatment in Manila for brain tumor and because of information she received that the complainant was no longer interested in the case. She set the case for trial only when she realized that the case was not moving (among others) after the Court's July-December 2009 docket inventory. The respondent also blamed her staff who, she claimed, were monitoring the case, for its lack of movement. ITAaCc
This Court was not persuaded by the respondent's explanation, stressing that she should have known that while the petitioner has the responsibility to move ex parte to have the case set for preliminary conference, the court (through the clerk of court) has the duty to schedule the case for pre-trial in the event the petitioner fails to file the motion.
In the present motion, the respondent is again before the Court seeking a reconsideration of its Decision dated June 20, 2012, on the ground that the act complained of — in not acting on the complainant's petition for contempt for her failure to properly apply the rules on pre-trial — does not constitute gross ignorance of the law, but merely simple neglect of duty which should be shared by the litigant and his lawyer, the clerk of court, the civil docket clerk and the presiding judge. She adds that her inaction was not motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty or corruption.
We deny the motion for lack of merit.
Jurisprudence defines simple neglect of duty as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. 1 On the other hand, gross ignorance of the law involves the performance by the judge of his/her duty to be acquainted with the basic legal commands of law and rules. 2 A judge becomes liable for simple neglect of duty when he/she fails to properly perform judicial duties through inadvertence and/or oversight by reason of carelessness or indifference. A judge becomes liable for gross ignorance of the law when there is a patent disregard for well-known rules so as to produce an inference of bad faith, dishonesty and corruption. 3
These concepts, as applied to the facts of the case, would reveal that the act of the respondent does not merely constitute simple neglect of duty. As the records show, there was no carelessness or indifference on the part of the respondent for she knew fully well the duties she should have performed with respect to the complainant's petition for contempt, which was then at its pre-trial stage. The respondent's failure to act was deliberate, out of compassion to the plight of the complainant's counsel and the information supplied to her by the branch clerk of court that the complainant's counsel would withdraw the case. 4 Thus, it is clear that her inaction in the case was deliberate and intentional, made in patent disregard of the rules on pre-trial.
Under the circumstances, the respondent's acts constitute gross ignorance of the law. In Criselda C. Gacad v. Judge Hilarion P. Clapis, Jr., etc., 5 the Court held that gross ignorance of the law is not mere deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment, but a patent disregard of well-known rules.
Note should also be taken of the Court's earlier observations that despite of the clear and unambiguous language of Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules of Court (Pre-Trial) and A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, April 16, 2004 (Rule on Guidelines to be Observed by the Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery Measures), which the respondent admitted to be well-acquainted with, the latter still erroneously interpreted its provisions, as shown by her insistence that it was the complainant's duty to set the case for hearing. Her gross ignorance of the rules was emphasized by her failure to observe the rules on when the case should be set for hearing when no motion to set the case for hearing was filed by the plaintiff. CcEHaI
Finally, the Court has held in numerous cases that the failure to apply elementary rules of procedure constitutes gross ignorance of the law and procedure. 6 Neither good faith nor lack of malice will exonerate the respondent because the rules violated were basic procedural rules. 7 All that was needed for the respondent to do was to apply them. 8
ACCORDINGLY, premises considered, we DENY the Motion for Reconsideration for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LOURDES C. PERFECTODivision Clerk of Court
By:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.In Re: Undated Letter of Mr. Louis Biraogo, A.M. No. 09-2-19-SC, February 24, 2009, 580 SCRA 106, 162, citing Rivera v. Buena, A.M. No. P-07-2394, February 19, 2008, 546 SCRA 222.
2.Agunday v. Judge Tresvalles, 377 Phil. 141, 154-155 (1999).
3.Alvarado v. Laquindanum, A.M. No. MTJ-93-835, July 3, 1995, 245 SCRA 501, 504.
4.Motion for Reconsideration, p. 5, also see page 3 of Annex 3 thereof.
5.A.M. No. RTJ-10-2257, July 17, 2012.
6.Diaz v. Gestopa, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-11-1786, June 22, 2011, 652 SCRA 434, 441.
7.Ibid.
8.Ibid.