Title
Bellena vs. Perello
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1846
Decision Date
Jan 31, 2005
Judge Perello fined P20,000 for undue delay in transmitting case records, violating judicial duty to ensure prompt court operations; charges of gross ignorance, misconduct dismissed.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1846)

Facts:

Parties Involved:

  • Complainants: Melecia B. Bellena, Anacita Leoncito, Gina Lucban, Ma. Fe C. Balsa, Filomena T. Bellena, Elena B. Timcang, Felipe Gade, Jr., Amy Clave, Candelaria Barrientos, Fortunato Estores, Creselda I. Azucena, Rosario B. Ebon, Perlita D. Llaguno, Zenaida M. Alfar, Rowena A. Bermudo, Almarie L. Llaguno, Gemma F. Senda, Gemma Gade, Alvin Samson, Vicente Galgo, Oscar Lito F. Arambola, Cesar Go, Mary Jane C. Mahilum, Emily Senillo, Elvira Viscayno, Narciso Mariaca, Lina D. Chua, Rolando Capesenio, Elvira Velasco, Wenefreda Donor, Danilo M. Manalo, and Rey Jay Bejedor.
  • Respondent: Judge Norma C. Perello, Presiding Judge, Branch 276, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Muntinlupa City.

Background of the Case:

  • Complainants were plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 01-268, an action for Illegal Eviction/Demolition, Loss of Property and Damages, Injunction and Temporary Restraining Order, Relocation/Restitution/Benefits, With Prayer for Lis Pendens and Other Relief, filed against CST Enterprises, Inc. (CST) and others.
  • Respondent Judge Perello granted CST’s motion to dismiss the case on November 22, 2001. Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied on January 28, 2002.
  • Complainants filed a Notice of Appeal on February 2, 2002, seeking to appeal the dismissal orders to the Court of Appeals. The respondent judge gave due course to the appeal on March 6, 2002, directing the clerk of court to transmit the records.
  • The records were transmitted to the Court of Appeals only on December 12, 2002, almost nine months after the appeal was given due course.

Complainants’ Allegations:

  • Complainants accused Judge Perello of gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression for the delay in transmitting the records, which allegedly frustrated their quest for a speedy resolution of their appeal.
  • They cited Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to dispose of court business promptly.

Respondent’s Defense:

  • Judge Perello denied any deliberate delay, attributing the delay to her branch clerk of court, Atty. Luis Bucayon II, who allegedly failed to transmit the records promptly.
  • She claimed that the records were incomplete due to a pending appeal en consulta with the Land Registration Authority (LRA).

Investigating Justice’s Findings:

  • The Investigating Justice found that the delay in transmitting the records was extraordinary and appalling.
  • While the clerk of court was primarily responsible for the delay, Judge Perello failed to adequately supervise her staff, violating Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to ensure prompt and efficient court operations.

Issue:

  1. Whether the delay in transmitting the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 to the Court of Appeals constitutes gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, or oppression on the part of Judge Perello.
  2. Whether Judge Perello should be held administratively liable for the delay.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Conclusion:

The Supreme Court held Judge Norma Perello guilty of undue delay in transmitting the records of Civil Case No. 01-268 to the Court of Appeals. She was fined P20,000.00 and admonished to improve her court’s efficiency. The charges of gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression were dismissed for lack of merit.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.