Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-99-1459)
Facts:
Victor D. Ong v. Judge Voltaire Y. Rosales, Regional Trial Court, Branch 83, Tanauan, Batangas, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1459 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 97-342-RTJ), February 17, 2000, Supreme Court Second Division, Quisumbing, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Victor D. Ong filed a sworn letter complaint on March 16, 1997 charging Judge Voltaire Y. Rosales of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 83, Tanauan, Batangas, with Misconduct and Abuse of Authority in connection with Civil Case No. C-041 (Anunciacion Jayin v. Atty. Virginia Villaluz, et al.), which concerned annulment of transfer certificates of title for about 98 hectares in Talisay, Batangas. Ong alleged that a compromise agreement had been entered into on his behalf by his counsel, Atty. Abraham G. Espejo, and by Atty. Gilbert M. Fabella as attorney-in-fact for plaintiff Anunciacion Jayin.
Ong averred that Judge Rosales prepared and signed an Order dated January 17, 1997 approving the compromise agreement and that a copy was received by Ong’s messenger; he later received demands from Atty. Fabella for an additional P200,000 and was subsequently informed by Judge Rosales that the court had not approved the compromise and that the signed order was not effective. Ong charged conspiracy between the judge and Atty. Fabella, alleged favoritism in repeated postponements, and claimed the judge rendered court proceedings a sham by disavowing a signed order; he sought investigation and sanctions against the judge and referral of Atty. Fabella to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.
In a comment dated July 14, 1997, respondent Judge Rosales denied the allegations. He explained that he had intended to call the parties for a hearing before approving the compromise—particularly because the plaintiff was reportedly abroad and a large sum was involved—and he directed the Acting Clerk of Court to set the matter for hearing. He stated the Order dated January 17, 1997 had been inadvertently removed from his desk by a staff member and prematurely released without his initials on the first page; he later set aside that Order in open court. He denied any conspiracy with Atty. Fabella and maintained that postponements did not consistently favor one party.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in an Evaluation and Recommendation Report dated February 5, 1999, found negligence in the premature and highly irregular release of the questioned order and recommended that Judge Rosale...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Did the complainant prove that Judge Rosales committed *misconduct* and *abuse of authority*—including conspiracy with Atty. Fabella—in relation to Civil Case No. C-041?
- Did the premature and irregular release of the signed Order of January 17, 1997 constitute negligence warranting disciplinary sanction, and what...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)