Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2246)
Facts:
Atty. Randy P. Bareng v. Judge Zenaida R. Daguna, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2246 (formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3219-RTJ), June 01, 2011, the Supreme Court Third Division, Brion, J., writing for the Court.
The complainant, Atty. Randy P. Bareng, filed a Complaint‑Affidavit on July 8, 2009 with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) charging Judge Zenaida R. Daguna, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 19, Manila, with gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions arising from her handling of consolidated Criminal Case Nos. 05-237561 and 05-237562 (People v. Antiporda, et al.). The criminal cases were originally before RTC Branch 29 (Judge Cielito M. Grulla), which on October 26, 2005 granted the public prosecutor’s motion to withdraw the information; the private complainant filed motions for reconsideration, inhibition, and transfer. Judge Grulla inhibited; the cases were re‑raffled to Branch 19 (Judge Daguna).
In a December 9, 2005 resolution, Judge Daguna granted the private complainant’s motion for reconsideration and set aside Judge Grulla’s October 26, 2005 order; she later denied Awingan’s motion for reconsideration in an Order of February 3, 2006. Accused Romulo Awingan petitioned the Court of Appeals (CA) for certiorari and prohibition alleging grave abuse of discretion by Judge Daguna. While the CA petition was pending, Judge Daguna issued warrants of arrest against the accused.
The CA, in an November 10, 2006 Decision (pened by Justice Lucas P. Bersamin), granted Awingan’s petition, finding grave abuse by Judge Daguna, nullified her two resolutions, ordered her to grant the motion to withdraw the informations, and prohibited further proceedings in the cases. After the CA decision, Atty. Bareng filed a Manifestation and Motion (Nov. 15, 2006) in the RTC to implement the CA ruling and attached a certified copy of the CA decision. Judge Daguna denied the motion on December 4, 2006 for lack of merit, ordered Bareng to show cause why he should not be held in contempt, and later found him guilty of contempt and fined P1,000 in an Order of January 3, 2007.
Bareng pursued motions for reconsideration and repeatedly filed motions to resolve when the RTC did not promptly act; a June 19, 2009 motion to resolve/ elevate appeal followed. Judge Daguna later stated she had resolved the motion for reconsideration on July 31, 2007 but the order had not been released due to clerical lapses; she blamed understaffing and her health. She likewise explained delayed transmittal of the records to the CA as staff oversight. While the administrative complaint was pending, Judge Daguna applied for disability retirement and was allowed to retire; P50,000 was withheld from her retirement benefits pending the administrative cases.
The OCA, in a February 24, 2010 report, found no ...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Are the charges of gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions against Judge Daguna sustainable?
- Is Judge Daguna liable for gross inefficiency and undue delay in rendering an order and in transmitting the records of a case?
- If liable, what sancti...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)