A.M. No. RTJ-11-2281 - Esturas vs. Lu

Complainant Atty. Marsha B. Esturas filed an administrative complaint on February 4, 2010, with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).
The complaint charged respondent Judge Agapito S. Lu with Conduct Unbecoming a Judge and undue Delay in the Disposition of a Case.

The complaint related to Civil Case No. N-8004, entitled "Mrs. Agnes Rafols-Domingo, Widow of Eliodoro S. Domingo and representative of the legal heirs Maria Angela, Johanna, and Joseph vs. Florante Gloriani and Gloria G. Reyel."
Atty. Esturas served as counsel for the plaintiffs in the civil case and had filed key motions pertaining to service of summons.

On June 10, 2009, Atty. Esturas filed a Motion to Serve Summons by Publication.
On October 26, 2009, she filed a Motion to Resolve Immediately the pending Motion to Serve Summons by Publication, highlighting the delay in the matter.

Complainant alleged that Judge Lu, as the Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 88, Cavite City, unduly delayed resolving the pending motion.
Respondent contended that delay occurred because, during the last quarter of 2009, Atty. Esturas personally requested the Branch Clerk, Atty. Jordan J. TeaAo, to defer the resolution of the motions while she was negotiating with Atty. Arnel G. Espiritu for an amicable settlement.
The Branch Clerk retained the case records until he received word that the settlement negotiations had failed on April 16, 2010, after which the records were forwarded to Judge Lu.
Judge Lu admitted to certain irregular practices, such as signing records but scanning them only "sometimes," which contributed to the delay.

The case was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and referred to the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals.
Investigating Justice Associate Justice Agnes Reyes-Carpio, after a thorough investigation, found merit in the complaint against Judge Lu.
She concluded that Judge Lu’s attributing the delay to both the complainant’s negotiation efforts and the actions of Branch Clerk Atty. TeaAo was unconvincing.
The absence of any written order or proper record of a deferment further compounded the irregularities in court management.
The Investigating Justice recommended a fine of P10,000 for Judge Lu, advised the Branch Clerk to be more circumspect, and recommended dismissing the counter-charge for disbarment against Atty. Esturas.

On January 28, 2019, the OCA issued a memorandum agreeing with the primary findings of the Investigating Justice, with the recommendation to fine Judge Lu for the less serious offense of undue delay in rendering a decision.
The memorandum also advised a reminder to Atty. TeaAo regarding his duties and recommended the dismissal of the counter-complaint against Atty. Esturas for lack of merit.

During the hearing, details emerged of the interplay between the parties. Atty. TeaAo confirmed that the deferment was based on a personal request by Atty. Esturas, which was never substantiated by a written order.
The exchange among the bench, Atty. TeaAo, and Atty. Esturas established that the procedural irregularities and lack of proper documentation contributed significantly to the delay in resolving the pending motion.

Whether Judge Agapito S. Lu committed judicial misconduct by failing to resolve, in a timely manner, the Motion to Serve Summons by Publication.

Was the eight-month delay in resolving the motion justifiable under the circumstances provided?
Can the excuse of awaiting a negotiated settlement and subsequent administrative lapses by the Branch Clerk be accepted as valid reasons for the delay?

Whether the failure to document the request for deferring the resolution of the motion constitutes a breach of proper court procedure.

Did the absence of a written order or formal record exacerbate the delay and contribute to mismanagement?
To what extent does this lapse undermine the integrity of court proceedings?

Whether the counter-complaint for disbarment against Atty. Esturas is sustainable meritoriously.

Does the evidence support the claim that Atty. Esturas engaged in conduct warranting disbarment?
Is pursuing the counter-charge appropriate in view of the elapsed time and lack of substantial proof?

What is the appropriate sanction to impose, considering the delay and the mismanagement of court records in the context of judicial administrative responsibilities?

Should the sanction focus solely on the delayed resolution, or also on the failure in the internal management of the case?