A.M. No. RTJ-09-2197 - Monticalbo vs. Maraya, Jr.

Complainant Antonino Monticalbo filed a verified administrative complaint against Judge Crescente F. Maraya, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Calubian, Leyte.
The charges leveled include gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and grave abuse of authority through false representation.

Monticalbo was a defendant in a civil case for collection of a sum of money filed by Fatima Credit Cooperative before the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Calubian-San Isidro, Leyte.
The civil case was dismissed by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court on February 1, 2008, on the ground that Fatima Credit Cooperative’s representative lacked authority to prosecute the case.
Monticalbo’s counterclaim for attorney’s fees and litigation expenses was not ruled upon, prompting him to file a motion for reconsideration, which the court denied.
The case was subsequently elevated to the Regional Trial Court where his appeal was docketed as Civil Case No. CN-89.
A motion for extension of time to file a memorandum on appeal was filed and granted on June 25, 2008, by Judge Maraya.

On August 26, 2008, Judge Maraya dismissed Monticalbo’s appeal on the basis that it was filed out-of-time under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
The dismissal was predicated on the rule that a motion for reconsideration is a prohibited pleading and does not toll the period for filing a Notice of Appeal; under this rule, the appeal period expired on February 29, 2008.
The complaint claims that Monticalbo’s appeal should have been considered differently, arguing that his claim exceeded the P10,000.00 limit, and that Judge Maraya erroneously applied the Rules on Summary Procedure.

Monticalbo alleged that the judge was motivated by bad faith and corruption, including:

Citing a non-existent case (Jaravata v. Court of Appeals, CA G.R. No. 85467, supposedly from April 25, 1990) in his order dismissing the appeal.
Accepting bribes in the form of food from the plaintiff cooperative through Margarito Costelo, Jr., who was then Sheriff of the court and Chairman/President of the cooperative.

Monticalbo also asserted that he personally witnessed Judge Maraya engaging in drinking sprees with Costelo and other male staff members in a nipa hut annexed to the court building on three separate dates during office hours.

In his Comment and Manifestations dated December 29, 2008, Judge Maraya refuted all accusations:

He maintained that his dismissal of the appeal was proper since the appeal was filed past the allowable period under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
He dismissed the allegations of bad faith and corruption as baseless, suggesting that the complaint was orchestrated on the urging of his counsel, Atty. Alexander Lacaba, as a means of personal vindication after a lost appeal.
He denied engaging in any improper conduct during office hours, attributing his location in the nipa hut to security reasons rather than any illicit behavior.

The administrative complaint was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and referred to the Executive Justice, Court of Appeals Cebu City Station, for investigation and recommendation.
On April 13, 2010, Associate Justice Edwin D. Sorongon issued his Report and Recommendation:

It was recommended that Judge Maraya be absolved of charges of grave misconduct and corruption.
However, Judge Maraya was admonished and strictly warned for misrepresenting the law by citing a non-existent case, thus calling for vigilance in the future.

The Supreme Court, while recognizing the need for judicial accountability, found that:

There was insufficient evidence to prove bad faith, dishonesty, or corruption beyond mere speculation.
The dismissal of the appeal on procedural grounds under the Rules on Summary Procedure was proper.
The mis-citation of the non-existent case, although lacking the gravamen needed for severe disciplinary action, warranted an admonishment and stern warning.

Consequently, the administrative complaint for grave misconduct and bribery was dismissed, but Judge Maraya was admonished for his citation error.

Whether Judge Maraya’s dismissal of Monticalbo’s appeal based on the Rules on Summary Procedure was correct and whether his interpretation of such rules was proper.

The central point is whether the appellant’s claim, purported to exceed the P10,000.00 threshold, should have been accorded a different treatment under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Related to this is the proper application of the rule that a motion for reconsideration does not toll the appeal period.

Whether Judge Maraya’s actions, particularly the citation of a non-existent case (Jaravata v. Court of Appeals), constitute grave misconduct or any form of corruption warranting disciplinary action.

It must be determined whether the mis-citation reflects a mere error in judgment or a deliberate act done in bad faith.
Whether there is sufficient evidence to prove that his conduct in dismissing the appeal, and the allegations of bribery and drinking with staff, were influenced by corruption or improper motives.

Whether the administrative remedy was the appropriate avenue for addressing Monticalbo’s grievances instead of, or in addition to, judicial remedies such as motions for reconsideration or appeal.