Title
Valdez vs. Torres
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1796
Decision Date
Jun 13, 2012
Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres found guilty of undue delay in resolving a civil case and insubordination for failing to comply with OCA directives, fined P20,000.00 post-dismissal.
valdez
torres
judge
A

Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-11-1796)

Facts:

  • Background of the case and the civil action subject of the complaint
    • Complainant Fe D. Valdez filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Lizabeth G. Torres of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 60, Mandaluyong City, for delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 20191.
    • Civil Case No. 20191 was an action for damages and attorneys fees instituted on October 25, 2005 by complainant against Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. (PGAI) and Charlie Tan (Tan).
    • The case was raffled to the Mandaluyong MeTC-Branch 60 presided over by respondent.
    • Complainant alleged that she bought a comprehensive insurance policy for her motor vehicle from PGAI through broker Tan.
    • Complainant alleged that she fully paid her premium, that during the validity of the insurance the insured motor vehicle was damaged, and that the repair cost P167,278.56.
    • Complainant alleged that PGAI and Tan refused to pay her claim despite several demands.
    • Complainant prayed for judgment awarding her P167,278.56 as actual damages, P50,000.00 as moral damages, P50,000.00 as exemplary damages, P50,000.00 attorneys fees, and P2,000.00 appearance fees.
  • Proceedings before the MeTC and submission for decision
    • Respondent proceeded to hear Civil Case No. 20191 in accordance with the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
    • After the parties filed their respective position papers, respondent submitted Civil Case No. 20191 for decision on July 19, 2006.
  • Delay and repeated motions for immediate resolution by complainant
    • Almost a year after submission for decision, the case remained unresolved.
    • Complainant filed a first motion for immediate resolution on June 27, 2007.
    • Complainant filed a second motion for immediate resolution on October 19, 2007.
    • Complainant filed a third motion for immediate resolution on December 11, 2007.
    • Complainant filed a fourth motion for immediate resolution on April 15, 2008.
    • Complainant filed a fifth motion for immediate resolution on June 11, 2008.
    • Complainant filed a sixth motion for immediate resolution on July 7, 2008.
    • Complainant filed a seventh motion to resolve on April 21, 2009.
    • Complainant filed an eighth motion to resolve on January 17, 2010.
  • Filing of the administrative complaint and service upon respondent
    • Due to the prolonged inaction, complainant filed the administrative complaint on June 4, 2010, alleging unreasonable delay in resolving Civil Case No. 20191 and resulting damage and prejudice to complainant.
    • The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a 1st Indorsement dated June 10, 2010 informing respondent of the administrative complaint and requiring her to submit her comment within 10 days from receipt.
    • The Registry Return Receipt showed respondent received the 1st Indorsement on July 5, 2010, but she failed to file her comment within the prescribed period.
    • The OCA sent a 1st Tracer dated September 15, 2010 reiterating the order to submit comment within 10 days from receipt of the tracer, with a warning that the complaint would be submitted for resolution without her comment.
    • The Registry Return Receipt showed respondent received the 1st Tracer on October 22, 2010, yet she still did not comply.
    • In the meantime, complainant filed a letter before the OCA on September 8, 2010, requesting action because respondent had still not decided Civil Case No. 20191.
  • Prior administrative actions against respondent and OCA recommendations in this case
    • On November 23, 2010, the Court promulgated its Decision in three other consolidated administrative cases against respondent in Lugares v. Gutierrez-Torres, already dismissing her from service.
    • In its report dated August 25, 2011, the OCA made these recommendations:
      • Re-docket the administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter against respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres.
      • Find respondent guilty of insubordination, gross inefficiency, and grave and serious misconduct.
      • Because of her previous dismissal from the service, impose a fine of P20,000.00, to be deducted from accrued leave credits.
      • Direct the Employees Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services-OCA to compute respondent’s earned leave credits.
      • Direct the Leave Division to forward the total accrued leave credits to the Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office-OCA to compute their monetary value and deduct from it the amount of the fine, without prejudice to penalties in other remaining or pending administrative cases, if any.
    • The Court issued a Resolution dated October 3, 2011 re-docketing the administrative complaint as a regular administrative matter and requiring the parties to manifest within 10 days from notice whether they were willing to submit the matter for resolution based on pleadings.
    • Both parties failed to submit their respective manifestations despite notice, and the Court deemed the case submitted for decision.
  • Court’s findings on respondent’s non-compliance and the merits of the undue delay charge
    • The Court noted respondent had been given ample opportunity to address the complaint.
    • The Court found that respondent received both the OCA 1st Indorsement dated June 10, 2010 and the OCA 1st Tracer dated September 15, 2010, which explicitly required her to file a comment.
    • The Court found respondent failed to comply with those OCA directives up to the resolution of the present case.
    • The Court also found respondent failed, despite due notice, to comply with the Court’s Resolution dated October 3, 2011 requiring manifestations on submission for resolution based on pleadings.
    • The Court stated that such failure could amount to insubordination, gross inefficiency, and neglect of duty and that respondent had lost the opportunity to defend herself.
    • As to the merits, the Court held the record satisfactorily established respondent’s undue delay in resolving Civil Case No. 20191.
  • Specific timing relevant to the constitutional and procedural periods
    • The Court emphasized that Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates that cases or matters filed with lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from submission for decision or resolution.
    • The Court stated that for cases falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure, first-level courts are allowed 30 days following receipt of the last affidavit and position paper, or expiration of the period for filing the same, within which to render judgment.
    • The Court found that respondent submitted Civil Case No. 20191 for decision on July 19, 2006, yet it remained unresolved when complainant filed the administrative complaint on June 4, 2010 and remained unresolved as of complainant’s manifestation filed September 8, 2010.
    • The Court found more than four years after submission for resolution, Civil Case No. 20191 still awaited decision by respondent.
    • The Court found respondent irrefragably failed to decide the case within the 30-day period required by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
    • The Court also found respondent failed to decide within the three-month constitutional period for lower courts to resolve cases.
    • The Court noted the records did not show respondent made any previous attempt to report and request an extension of time to resolve Civil Case No. 20191.
  • Applicable characterization and prior administrat...(Subscriber-Only)

    ...continue reading
    Unlock Full Case Digest

    Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
    Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

    About Privacy Terms