Case Digest (A.C. No. 8677)
Facts:
The case involves Marita Cabas (petitioner) filing an administrative complaint against Atty. Ria Nina L. Sususco and Chief City Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos (respondents) for gross dereliction of duty and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6033. The complaint was initiated on July 7, 2010, following a series of events that began on January 11, 2010, when Cabas, along with two other complainants, filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Mauricio Valdez at the City Prosecutor's Office in Olongapo City. They were falsely accused of estafa and had been acquitted in a prior order dated December 4, 2009. Cabas filed multiple motions urging the Prosecutor's Office to resolve the case, specifically an Ex Parte Urgent Motion on May 21, 2010, a Second Ex Parte Motion on June 3, 2010, and a Third Ex Parte Motion on June 23, 2010. However, it was not until July 1, 2010, that she received a resolution dated March 28, 2010, dismissing her complaint. Cabas alleged ...
Case Digest (A.C. No. 8677)
Facts:
Background of the Case:
Marita Cabas, an indigent, filed an administrative complaint against Atty. Ria Nina L. Sususco and Chief City Prosecutor Emilie Fe Delos Santos for gross dereliction of duty and violation of Republic Act (R.A.) No. 6033. The complaint stemmed from the alleged failure of the respondents to promptly resolve a criminal case for malicious prosecution filed by Cabas against Mauricio Valdez.
Filing of the Complaint:
On January 11, 2010, Cabas, along with two other complainants, filed a complaint for malicious prosecution against Mauricio Valdez before the City Prosecutor's Office of Olongapo City. They alleged that Valdez had falsely accused them of Estafa, and they were acquitted in a December 4, 2009 Order.
Motions to Resolve the Case:
Cabas filed three Ex Parte Urgent Motions to Resolve the Case:
- First Motion: Filed on May 21, 2010, and received the same day.
- Second Motion: Filed on June 3, 2010, and received the same day.
- Third Motion: Filed on June 23, 2010, and received on June 24, 2010.
Resolution of the Case:
On July 1, 2010, Cabas received a copy of the Resolution dated March 28, 2010, dismissing her complaint. She accused the respondents of failing to resolve the case within two weeks, as required under R.A. No. 6033 for indigent litigants.
Respondents' Defense:
- Atty. Sususco: Claimed the case was assigned to her only on March 9, 2010, after the revocation of the partial detail of Senior State Prosecutor Edwin Dayog. She submitted a Resolution recommending dismissal on March 28, 2010, which was forwarded to Pros. Delos Santos for review and approval.
- Pros. Delos Santos: Denied negligence, stating she approved the Resolution on June 18, 2010, and released it on June 24, 2010. She explained that she was on leave for significant periods between March and April 2010, which caused delays.
IBP Investigation:
The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) found Pros. Delos Santos guilty of dereliction of duty for the delay in approving the Resolution but dismissed the charges against Atty. Sususco. The IBP initially recommended a reprimand for Pros. Delos Santos but later reduced the penalty to a stern warning after reconsideration.
Issue:
- (Unlock)
Ruling:
- (Unlock)
Ratio:
- Gross Neglect of Duty: Gross neglect of duty requires a flagrant and culpable refusal or unwillingness to perform a duty. In this case, there was no sufficient evidence to prove that either respondent acted with malice or bad faith. Atty. Sususco acted promptly after the case was assigned to her, and Pros. Delos Santos' delay was due to her approved leaves and heavy workload.
- Substantial Evidence: Administrative proceedings require substantial evidence to establish guilt. Cabas failed to provide clear and convincing evidence to support her allegations of gross neglect of duty against the respondents.
- R.A. No. 6033: While the law mandates prompt resolution of cases involving indigents, the delay in this case was not due to willful or malicious refusal but to legitimate reasons, such as reassignment of the case and approved leaves.