ATTY. RANDY P. BARENG vs.
JUDGE ZENAIDA R. DAGUNA The OCA’s Report/Recommendation
In its submission dated February 24, 2010,[24] the OCA found no evidence to sustain the charges of gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions of her office against Judge Daguna. The OCA, however, found Judge Daguna guilty of gross inefficiency. The OCA’s report stated:
The inefficiency of the respondent Judge is apparent in the following instances: (1) She acknowledged the fact that she had first known of the filing of the Motion to Resolve from the complainant himself which also led to her knowledge of the failure to mail her 31 July 2007 Order; (2) She likewise learned first hand, when she received a copy of the present administrative complaint, that her 21 May 2008 Order giving due course to the complainant’s Notice of Appeal was not released on time; (3) She attempted to escape responsibility as regards the failure of the court staff in mailing the said twin Orders by stating that they were resolved on time. It is not likewise clear why the respondent Judge did not pay much attention to the desist order of the appellate court.
It must be noted that the respondent rendered the 31 July 2007 Order beyond the 90-day reglementary period reckoned from the complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration dated 31 January 2007. Granting arguendo that the said Order was indeed issued, the same was issued with more than 3 months of delay or a period of 6 months from the filing of the complainant’s last pleading which is a flagrant violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Ethics and Section 15 (1) and (2), Article VII of the Constitution. xxx
Lastly, judges are not allowed to use their staff as shields to evade responsibility for mistakes and mishaps in the course of the performance of their duties (Hilario v Concepcion, 327 SCRA 96). He should be the master of his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes of his subjects (Pantaleon v Guadiz, Jr., 323 SCRA 147). Judges are bound to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to decide cases within the required period (Dela Cruz v Bersamira, 336 SCRA 253). Delay in the disposition of even one (1) case constitutes gross inefficiency which the Supreme Court will not tolerate.
The OCA recommended that the case be redocketed as a regular administrative matter and that Judge Daguna be fined P10,000.00, deductible from the P50,000.00 withheld from her retirement benefits.
The Court’s Ruling
We agree with the OCA’s finding that Judge Daguna is liable for gross inefficiency for failing to adopt a system of record management in her court. Judge Daguna violated Rule 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct that provides:
Rule 3.08 – A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions or other judges and court personnel.
Rule 3.09 – A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.
On July 31, 2007,[25] Judge Daguna also resolved Atty. Bareng’s motion for reconsideration which was filed on January 31, 2007, or way beyond the required period. There was also a delay in sending the records of the appealed case to the CA. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that “A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.”
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides:
SECTION 9. Less Serious Charges. — Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
xxx
SECTION 11. Sanctions. —
xxx
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) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
In addition to gross inefficiency, we find Judge Daguna guilty of delay in rendering an order, as well as delay in transmitting the records of a case. Based on Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the penalty for a less serious charge is either suspension or a fine. Considering Judge Daguna’s retirement, we consider a total fine of P15,000.00 to be the appropriate penalty. This fine shall be deducted from the P50,000.00 withheld from her retirement benefits.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Zenaida R. Daguna, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 19, Manila, is hereby declared GUILTY of gross inefficiency, and of undue delay in rendering an order and in transmitting the records of a case. She is hereby FINED Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00), to be deducted from the Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) withheld from her retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-7.
[2] Id. at 103.
[3] Id. at 16.
[4] Id. at 15.
[5] Id. at 103.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Id. at 8-36; Penned by Associate Justice Lucas P. Bersamin, and concurred in by Associate Justices Martin S. Villarama, Jr. and Monina Arevalo-Zenarosa.
[8] Id. at 33.
[9] Id. at 37-41.
[10] Id. at 42-44.
[11] Id. at 44.
[12] Id. at 45-52.
[13] Id. at 53-56.
[14] Id. at 57-64.
[15] Id. at 65-67.
[16] Id. at 68-69.
[17] Id. at 70-72.
[18] Id. at 100; dated March 14, 2008.
[19] Rollo, p. 97.
[20] Id. at 98.
[21] Ibid.
[22] Supra note 1.
[23] Rollo, pp. 78-81.
[24] Id. at 103-109.
[25] Id. at 105.
No comments:
Post a Comment