A.M. No. RTJ-04-1861 - Corpus vs. Ochotorena

On May 22, 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a verified complaint filed by Margie Corpus-Macias (Mrs. Macias) on May 11, 2001.
The complaint accused Judge Wilfredo G. Ochotorena, then presiding judge of RTC Branch 11 in Sindangan, Zamboanga Del Norte, of bias, partiality, and violation of judicial conduct in connection with his handling of Civil Case No. S-695 for declaration of nullity of marriage between Mariano Joaquin S. Macias and Margie Corpus-Macias.

On February 6, 2001, Mariano Joaquin S. Macias, husband of Mrs. Macias and presiding judge of RTC Branch 11 in Liloy, filed a verified complaint seeking the declaration of nullity of marriage against Mrs. Macias.
The same day, Judge Ochotorena issued summons to Mrs. Macias; however, the summons was not served due to her allegedly unknown whereabouts.

Mr. Macias filed a motion to serve summons by publication, which was granted on March 7, 2001.
The summons was published in a local weekly newspaper (a Tingog Peninsula) in its March 11-17, 2001 issue.

Mrs. Macias stated that she only learned of the publication during the first week of April 2001 and filed a Motion to Dismiss on April 10, 2001, within the prescribed 30-day period for filing an answer.
Despite the pending Motion to Dismiss, Judge Ochotorena scheduled a hearing on the merits of the case on April 19, 2001—one day before the hearing on her motion set for April 20, 2001—denying her motion and resetting hearings on April 30, May 2, and May 3, 2001.
Between April 10 and April 30, 2001, various motions and manifestations opposing the hearing on the merits were submitted by Mrs. Macias’ counsel, many of which were either denied or ignored by the judge.

After the scheduled hearings, Judge Ochotorena terminated the proceedings and declared the case submitted for decision, despite the pending resolution of Mrs. Macias’s Motion for Dismissal and subsequent Motion for Reconsideration.
Mrs. Macias raised the allegation that the judge’s conduct, including receiving Mr. Macias’ evidence ex-parte and continuing with trial proceedings despite her unresolved motions, markedly violated her due process rights.
In response, Judge Ochotorena filed his Comment/Answer on May 25, 2001, contending that the complaint was fatally defective, motivated by malice, and that all proceedings were done in good faith.
Mrs. Macias later informed the court that she had filed a petition for certiorari under Rule 65 before the Court of Appeals, which positively resulted in a decision favoring her remedy for due process violations in the case.
On June 4, 2001, Judge Ochotorena retired; however, pursuant to a resolution dated October 22, 2001, the court retained P40,000 from his retirement benefits pending the imposition of any administrative sanctions.

Mrs. Macias alleged that Judge Ochotorena engaged in bias and partiality by proceeding with the case on the merits even though her Motion to Dismiss filed within the proper reglementary period was still pending.
It was contended that the judge disregarded Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure and other pertinent rules, effectively “railroading” the case by ignoring procedural requirements.
Mrs. Macias argued that these acts amounted to gross ignorance of basic law and procedure, warranting administrative sanctions against the judge.

Whether Judge Ochotorena violated Mrs. Macias’s right to due process by ignoring her duly filed Motion to Dismiss and proceeding with the trial on the merits despite procedural irregularities.

The timeliness and sufficiency of filing and resolving motions, particularly the Motion to Dismiss and the subsequent Motion for Reconsideration, were questioned.
The appropriateness of the judge’s actions, including receiving evidence ex-parte and terminating the trial regardless of pending motions, was scrutinized.

Whether the procedural shortcut or “railroading” of the case, by ignoring the mandatory resolution of the pending motion pursuant to Section 1, Rule 18 of the 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure, constitutes gross ignorance of the law.

Whether the judge should have prayed for judicial remedies other than administrative sanction given that alternative avenues existed for correcting alleged errors.

Whether the withholding of retirement benefits and imposition of a fine under the administrative sanctions for gross ignorance and incompetence were proper given the nature of the procedural shortcuts undertaken.