Tobia v. Balloguing

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-19-2575. September 29, 2021.][Formerly I.P.I. No. 18-4849-RTJ]

ROBERT JOVITO FAUSTINO TOBIA, ALSO KNOWN AS ROBERT H. TOBIA and CARMELITA TOBIA JAVIER, complainants, vs. PRESIDING JUDGE MARITA B. BALLOGUING, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 20, VIGAN CITY, ILOCOS SUR, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated September 29, 2021 which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. RTJ-19-2575 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 18-4849-RTJ) (Robert Jovito Faustino Tobia, also known as Robert H. Tobia and Carmelita Tobia Javier v. Presiding Judge Marita B. Balloguing, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur). — In a Complaint-Affidavit 1 filed on March 27, 2018, Robert Jovito Faustino Tobia and Carmelita Tobia Javier (complainants) accused Judge Marita Balloguing (respondent Judge) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, of Vigan City, Ilocos Sur (RTC) with gross ignorance of procedure, partiality and dereliction of duty. They alleged that on June 29, 2017, they filed a Petition for Declaration of Nullity of Identity of Heirs, Deed of Absolute Sale, Tax Declarations, and for Reconveyance and Damages 2 against Marcelino Ingan, Pascuala T. Tagala, et al., with a prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order (TRO) to enjoin them from continuing the construction of a commercial building on a contested property. They also prayed that a writ of preliminary prohibitory and mandatory injunction be issued to prevent the defendants from doing the acts sought to be restrained and for the defendants to submit to the custody of the court the Katibayan ng Original na Titulo Blg. P-28696 for safekeeping pendente lite.

On July 13, 2017, a hearing was conducted on the application for the TRO. Complainants were given ten days to file a reply to defendants' comment after which the RTC would resolve the application for the issuance of a TRO. 3 On July 25, 2017, Complainants submitted their Rejoinder to the Comment/Opposition. Afterwards, Complainants followed-up on the status of their application for TRO before the Clerk of Court, but no action was made. The inaction on the part of respondent judge prompted the complainants to write a letter to Chief Justice Ma. Lourdes Sereno informing her of the unexplained delay.

Finally, in an Order 4 dated February 6, 2018, respondent judge issued a 20-day TRO enjoining the defendants from further completing of the commercial building. In the same Order, the hearing for the preliminary injunction was also set to February 20, 2018, while the main case was scheduled for April 17, 2018. 5

During the February 20, 2018 hearing, respondent judge was informed that the issuance of the 20-day TRO was already moot, because the construction was already completed. Respondent judge then referred the case for mediation with the parties' agreement that the building would not be occupied pending mediation. 6 Complainants are of the position that the referral was a strategy of the respondent judge to distance herself from the case. 7

On July 11, 2018, the Office of the Court Administrator directed respondent to file her comment on the Complaint-Affidavit. 8 She prayed for an extension, 9 citing her full schedule as Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Vigan City and as Acting Presiding Judge in Branch 72, RTC Narvacan, Ilocos Sur (RTC-Narvacan). The request for extension was granted by the OCA. 10

On September 3, 2018, respondent judge filed her Comment. 11 She explained that the delay was due to inadvertence on her part and her staff. Refuting the accusation of gross ignorance of the law, she stated that she maintained a logbook in her chambers where all the cases due for decision, or any pleadings due for resolution, were carefully listed by the civil and criminal docket clerks. She even regularly checked the logbook. She then recalled that during the period May 2, 2017 to October 10, 2017, the task of recording was assigned to the court stenographer, Madelene Apili (Apili), because respondent judge had no docket clerk at that time. Apili was also instructed to place on respondent judge's table any pleadings due for action at least five days prior to its due date. Unfortunately, Apili failed to write down the complainants' application for TRO in the logbook and to place it on her desk. Had it been so, respondent would have acted on it without any delay. She also added that she even had notes posted on her computer table to remind her of very urgent cases/motions. 12

Respondent judge further narrated that, the Enhanced Justice on Wheels was launched in Vigan in August 2017 and she devoted most of her time to ensure its success. A month later, the Guidelines on Continuous Trial took effect, so she had to conduct daily hearings in both her main sala in Vigan City and in her sala as Acting Judge in Narvacan. These might have contributed to the oversight in resolving complainants' application for TRO. She further averred that a judicial audit team found no irregularities when they conducted their audit sometime in November 2017. Thus, she was surprised when she received a letter from the Supreme Court in February 2018 calling her attention to complainants' pending application for TRO. When she checked her logbook, the pleading was not listed therein. 13 She confronted the court stenographer, who apologized for the mistake. 14 Her new Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Mayvelyn P. Tajon, supported her defense and surmised that the inadvertence may have been because after the Rejoinder was filed, both parties in that case still submitted several more pleadings. 15

Respondent judge further declared that she was wholeheartedly devoted to her work and that she even seldom goes on leave. She points out that from June 2017 to January 2018, her court in Vigan had a caseload ranging from 295 to 308 and she was able to decide 91 criminal cases and 43 civil cases, excluding the orders and resolution issued during that time. She is also the Executive Judge of the RTC in Vigan which meant that she also had administrative work and had to attend to numerous applications for search warrants. As Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC-Narvacan since 2016, she was able to dispose 59 criminal cases and 27 civil cases from her caseload from 330 to 367, not counting the resolutions and orders rendered. 16

Finally, Respondent judge expressed that complainants and their counsel are not completely blameless because they could have filed a motion to resolve pending application or at least talked to the Branch Clerk of Court instead of going straight to the Chief Justice. 17

As to the accusation of impartiality, respondent judge vehemently denied being bias for or against any party particularly because she is not from Vigan and that her only activity aside from work is going to the school where she teaches Remedial Law. In the workplace, anyone who has any concern about their cases only talk to her Branch Clerk or to concerned staff. Even in her own chambers, only staff and colleagues are allowed access. She maintains that complainant's case is an isolated incident and that this is even her first administrative case. 18

On March 20, 2019, the Office of Chief Justice Lucas P. Bersamin received a Letter 19 from complainants calling his attention to respondent judge's alleged nonchalant response to their complaint and moving for its resolution. This letter was forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for appropriate action. 20

In its Recommendation 21 dated August 16, 2019, the OCA presented the following:

(1) [T]he instant administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Marita B. Balloguing, Branch 20, RTC, Vigan, Ilocos Sur, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;

(2) Judge Balloguing be found GUILTY of undue delay in rendering an order and, accordingly, be REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely; and,

(3) [T]he charges of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and partiality be DISMISSED for lack of merit. 22

The OCA held that respondent judge's explanations are insufficient to absolve her from the accusation of undue delay in resolving the application for TRO. It noted that it was respondent's duty and responsibility to know which cases or motions were submitted for decision or resolution because, as a judge, she is expected to closely follow the development of cases and to even keep her own record of cases. 23

The OCA stressed that, under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. However, the OCA considered that since this was respondent judge's first offense for undue delay in rendering an order, then the penalty of reprimand was appropriate. 24

As to the charges of gross ignorance of the law and procedure and partiality, the OCA found these to be without basis. It stated that no substantial evidence was submitted by the complainants, hence, the presumption that respondent judge regularly performed her duties, prevails. 25

After reviewing the facts and recommendations made on the case, We resolve to adopt the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator to issue a reprimand with stern warning to respondent judge for failing to act on the application for TRO for more than six months.

The Constitution provides that judges must resolve motions or incidents pending before them within the reglementary period of 90 days. 26 The New Code of Judicial Conduct on Competence and Diligence likewise states that:

Section 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

The noble office of a judge is to render justice, not only impartially but expeditiously as well, for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. 27 As a result, judges like herein respondent, should always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to promptly administer justice. 28 In Guerrero v. Judge Deray, 29 this was enunciated in this wise:

As has been often said, delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith in the judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions on them. Appellate magistrates and judges alike, being paradigms of justice, have been exhorted time and again to dispose of the court's business promptly and to decide cases within the required periods. Delay not only results in undermining the people's faith in the judiciary from whom the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated and expected; it also reinforces in the mind of the litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.

Perforce, the failure of respondent judge to decide the application for TRO with dispatch is inexcusable. 30 As aptly discussed by the OCA:

Respondent Judge attributed the delay to the inadvertence on her part and the staff and her additional workload, being the Executive Judge of the RTC, Vigan City, Ilocos Sur, and Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur. However, the reasons proffered by respondent Judge are not sufficient to justify her delay in resolving complainant's prayer for a TRO. As the presiding judge, it is her responsibility to know which cases or motions were submitted for decision or resolution. Judges are expected to closely follow the development of cases and in this respect, to keep their own record of cases so that they may act on them promptly. 31

Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering decision or order, and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars, are penalized with either suspension without pay for a period of not less than One (1) month, but not more than Three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00, but not more than P20,000.00. 32 However, given that this is her first offense, it is proper to temper the consequence of respondent judge's oversight. This is consistent with jurisprudence 33 when actual administrative penalties prescribed by law or regulation were not imposed due to the presence of mitigating factors. 34 As this Court disposed in Judge Baculi v. Ugale: 35

x x x while we are duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline our errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, we also have the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy.

Accordingly, We adopt the recommendation of the OCA that a reprimand be issued to respondent judge with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

The Court resolves to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator in its Memorandum 36 dated August 16, 2019.

WHEREFORE, Presiding Judge Marita Balloguing, Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Vigan City is hereby REPRIMANDED for undue delay in rendering an order, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severity.

SO ORDERED."

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. 2-9.

2. Amended Complaint filed on August 4, 2017; id. at 10-19.

3.Rollo, p. 28.

4.Id. at 29-31.

5.Id. at 31.

6.Id. at 34.

7.Id. at 4.

8.Id. at 35.

9.Id. at 36.

10.Id. at 37.

11.Id. at 38-43.

12.Id. at 39-40.

13.Id.

14. Affidavit dated August 30, 2018; id. at 58.

15.Rollo, p. 67.

16.Id. at 40-41.

17.Id. at 41.

18.Id. at 41-42.

19.Id. at 71-72.

20.Id. at 70.

21.Id. at 78-82.

22.Id. at 82.

23.Id. at 81.

24.Id.

25.Id.

26. Art. VIII, Sec. 15.

27.Office of the Court Administrator v. Villegas, 474 Phil. 475, 478-479 (2004).

28.Juson v. Judge Mondragon, 558 Phil. 613, 624-625 (2007).

29. 442 Phil. 85, 92-93 (2002).

30.Office of the Court Administrator v. Quilala, 404 Phil. 432, 440 (2001).

31.Rollo, p. 81. (Citations omitted)

32. Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, Section 11. Sanctions. x x x.

B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:

1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month no more than three (3) months; or

2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P10,000.00.

33.Cabigao v. Nery, 719 Phil. 475 (2013).

34. Section 48, Rule X of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service lists the following mitigating and aggravating circumstances:

a. Physical illness;

b. Good faith;

c. Malice;

d. Time and place of offense;

e. Taking undue advantage of official position;

f. Taking advantage of subordinate;

g. Undue disclosure of confidential information;

h. Use of government property in the commission of the offense;

i. Habituality;

j. Offense is committed during office hours and within the premises of the office or building;

k. Employment of fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense;

l. First offense;

m. Education;

n. Length of service; or

o. Other analogous circumstances.

35. 619 Phil. 686, 692 (2009).

36.Rollo, pp. 78-82.