Title
Bareng vs. Daguna
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2246
Decision Date
Jun 1, 2011
Judge Daguna found guilty of gross inefficiency, undue delay, and failure to supervise staff, fined P15,000 from withheld retirement benefits.
gross misconduct
abuse of office
murder cases

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2246)

Factual Background

Bareng served as counsel of Romulo Awingan, one of the accused in the consolidated murder cases. In October 2005, Judge Grulla issued an order granting the public prosecutors’ motion to withdraw the informations after the Secretary of Justice’s findings. The private complainant then filed a motion for reconsideration, inhibition and transfer of the cases to the regular court. Judge Grulla inhibited herself without resolving the pending motion for reconsideration and transfer. The cases were then re-raffled to RTC, Branch 19, presided by Judge Daguna.

On December 9, 2005, Judge Daguna granted the private complainant’s motion for reconsideration, set aside Judge Grulla’s withdrawal order, and reinstated the prosecution. Awingan, through Bareng, filed a motion for reconsideration, which Judge Daguna denied on February 3, 2006. Awingan then filed before the Court of Appeals a petition for certiorari and prohibition, alleging grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction.

While the CA petition was pending, Judge Daguna issued warrants of arrest against all the accused. On November 10, 2006, the CA granted the petition, finding grave abuse of discretion because Judge Daguna arbitrarily and whimsically disregarded the applicable guidelines and displayed unreasonable selectivity by not considering all records for independent evaluation. The CA nullified Judge Daguna’s resolutions, ordered that the motion to withdraw the informations be granted, and prohibited further proceedings in Criminal Case Nos. 05-237561-62.

Proceedings After the CA Decision and the Contempt Finding

Because the CA decision had to be implemented and the warrants were still effective, Bareng filed before the RTC, on November 15, 2006, a Manifestation and Motion to inform the RTC of the CA decision and request immediate implementation, attaching a certified copy of the decision. Judge Daguna denied the motion on December 4, 2006, reasoning that only final and executory judgments may be executed and that the motion did not include the required entry of judgment showing executory status. The record also reflected that the private complainant filed a motion for reconsideration before the CA.

Judge Daguna then ordered Bareng to show cause within ten (10) days as to why he should not be held in contempt of court or otherwise dealt with administratively for allegedly attempting to mislead the court. Bareng sought reconsideration, but Judge Daguna denied it on January 3, 2007, finding him in contempt of court and imposing a fine of P1,000.00 while warning against repetition.

Bareng filed a motion for reconsideration and, later, a supplement. After the RTC did not resolve promptly, he filed a first motion to resolve on January 2, 2008, and a second manifestation and motion to resolve on February 4, 2008. Judge Daguna later stated that she had resolved Bareng’s motion for reconsideration on July 31, 2007, but the order might not have been released; she directed that the order be reprinted and copies be furnished.

Upon receiving the copy of Judge Daguna’s resolution, Bareng filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2008. Bareng alleged that despite his request to resolve and elevate the appeal, Judge Daguna did not act with dispatch. Subsequently, on July 8, 2009, Bareng filed the administrative complaint before the OCA, charging Judge Daguna with gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions.

The Administrative Complaint and Judge Daguna’s Comment

Bareng’s complaint relied on several allegations. He asserted that Judge Daguna insinuated that his manifestation and motion had a pecuniary estimation attached, which he characterized as unfair and malicious. He also pointed to the contempt finding and to the sequence of his filings: his motion for reconsideration and supplement, his subsequent motions to resolve after substantial periods, and Judge Daguna’s claim that the motion for reconsideration had been resolved as early as July 31, 2007 but the order was allegedly not released.

Bareng further alleged that once he filed a notice of appeal on May 20, 2008, Judge Daguna did not act on the appeal despite his subsequent motion to resolve and/or elevate it.

In her July 31, 2009 Comment, Judge Daguna denied that the delays were attributable to her. She blamed court staff for the failure to mail the July 31, 2007 order and for delays in forwarding documents connected to the contempt proceeding to the CA. She described her court’s operational constraints, including understaffing and staff changes, and explained that the court staff oversight led to the delayed release of orders and incomplete or late transmittal of the record.

Judge Daguna also asserted that her health condition slowed her performance. She explained that because an administrative case was pending, she applied for disability retirement in late 2009 and the amount of P50,000.00 was withheld from her retirement benefits to answer for possible adverse judgment.

The OCA’s Report and Recommendation

In its submission dated February 24, 2010, the OCA recommended against the charges of gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions, finding no sufficient evidence to sustain them. However, the OCA found Judge Daguna guilty of gross inefficiency.

The OCA emphasized several points. First, Judge Daguna allegedly acknowledged that she only discovered the failure to mail the July 31, 2007 order after Bareng himself alerted her. Second, she only learned, upon receipt of the administrative complaint, that her May 21, 2008 order giving due course to Bareng’s notice of appeal was not released on time. Third, the OCA found it unclear why Judge Daguna did not give sufficient attention to the desist order issued by the appellate court.

The OCA also noted that the July 31, 2007 order was rendered beyond the reglementary period reckoned from Bareng’s filing of his motion for reconsideration on January 31, 2007. It further found that, even granting that the order was issued as stated, the timeline reflected delay inconsistent with the Code of Judicial Conduct and with constitutional requirements on prompt disposition of cases. Citing jurisprudence, the OCA stressed that judges could not escape responsibility by shifting blame to staff, and that they remained bound to supervise and ensure prompt and efficient administration of justice.

Issues

The case ultimately required the Court to determine whether Judge Daguna’s conduct warranted administrative liability, and, if so, what specific administrative offense was established by the evidence and applicable rules. The resolution treated the operative findings as pointing away from gross misconduct and manifest abuse and toward gross inefficiency, including undue delay in rendering an order and delay in transmitting records.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court held that Judge Daguna was liable for gross inefficiency due to her failure to adopt a system of record management in her court. It found that she violated Rule 3.08 and Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which require a judge to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain competence in court management, organize and supervise court personnel, and ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.

The Court focused on the following demonstrated lapses. Judge Daguna rendered an order on July 31, 2007 resolving Bareng’s motion for reconsideration which had been filed on January 31, 2007, placing the resolution beyond the required period. The Court also considered the delay in sending the records of the appealed case to the CA. These acts showed a pattern inconsistent with the duty to dispose of court business promptly, as reflected in Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which directs judges to decide cases within the required periods.

The Court additionally treated the case under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. It considered the relevant classification of administrative offenses and the sanctions for less serious charges. Under Section 9 of Rule 140, undue delay in rendering a decision or order and undue delay in transmitting the records of a case are included among less serious charges. Section 11 of Rule 140 provides that for such less serious charges, sanctions include suspension or a fine within a specified range.

Although the complaint sought serious accountability, the Court concluded that the established conduct fell within the less serious charge framework for delay and inefficiency. The Cour

...continue reading

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