Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408)
Facts:
Florante A. Miano v. Ma. Ellen M. Aguilar, A.M. No. RTJ-15-2408 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 13-4134-RTJ), March 02, 2016, Supreme Court First Division, Perlas-Bernabe, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Atty. Florante A. Miano filed a Verified Complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated September 10, 2013 charging respondent Ma. Ellen M. Aguilar, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Burgos, Pangasinan, Branch 70, with ignorance of the rules on inhibition and gross inefficiency in relation to several pending matters in her sala. The complaint identified specific matters including Civil Case No. 173-B (the Migano case) and Criminal Case No. B-685 (the Madarang case), alleging that respondent granted motions for inhibition but subsequently issued an Order dated October 11, 2007 directing the proceedings in the Migano case to be held in abeyance “until such time that a new Presiding Judge will be appointed by the Court Administrator to hear and decide this case.”
Complainant asserted that, under the guidelines in A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, where a single-branch RTC judge inhibits, the Order of Inhibition must be transmitted to the pairing judge to hear and decide the case; respondent’s October 11, 2007 Order and her failure to promptly transmit the records to the pairing judge in RTC-Alaminos City led to an approximately six-year stagnation of the Migano case until transmittal on July 25, 2013. Complainant also alleged undue delay in resolving motions (exceeding the 90-day period) and asserted partiality in respondent’s rulings vis-à-vis another counsel, Atty. Sancho Abasta, Jr.
In her comment, respondent admitted awareness of inhibition rules but explained the October 11, 2007 Order was intended merely to inform the OCA of her inhibition; she blamed her Branch Clerk of Court for failure to attach the transmittal letter, and attributed delays in deciding motions to a heavy workload—she was concurrently acting presiding judge in RTC-Alaminos City, Branch 54. She denied bias, characterizing some motions as pro forma.
The OCA, in a Report and Recommendation dated August 20, 2014, found respondent guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure, Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in Several Cases, and Undue Delay in Transmitting the R...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did respondent Ma. Ellen M. Aguilar commit Gross Ignorance of the Law/Procedure in relation to her October 11, 2007 Order and the delayed transmittal of records in the Migano case?
- Was respondent guilty of Undue Delay in Issuing Orders in several cases and Undue Delay in Transmitting the Records of a Case?
- If liable, what is the appropr...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)