Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1846)

Background of the Case

• Complainants, including Melecia B. Bellena and others, filed a verified letter-complaint against Judge Norma C. Perello for gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression.
• The complaint arose from Judge Perello's handling of Civil Case No. 01-268, which involved allegations of illegal eviction and damages against CST Enterprises, Inc.
• The judge granted a motion to dismiss filed by CST, leading to a series of appeals by the complainants, which were not promptly transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

Allegations Against the Respondent Judge

• Complainants alleged that Judge Perello deliberately delayed the transmittal of their appeal records to the Court of Appeals, which they claimed frustrated their quest for justice.
• They requested disciplinary action against the judge for violating Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Response from the Respondent Judge

• Judge Perello submitted a comment explaining the background of the case and asserting that the delay in transmitting records was not her fault but rather the responsibility of her branch clerk of court.
• She claimed that the complainants had previously lost in an unlawful detainer suit and had pursued various unsuccessful legal remedies before filing Civil Case No. 01-268.

Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator

• The Office of the Court Administrator found Judge Perello liable for the delay in transmitting the records and recommended a fine of P20,000.00.
• The case was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter for further investigation.

Investigation and Hearings

• The case was assigned to CA Associate Justice Rosalinda Asuncion-Vicente, who conducted hearings where both parties presented their evidence.
• Complainants testified about the delay, while Judge Perello maintained that she had no personal animosity towards them and had acted promptly in her orders.

Investigating Justice's Recommendations

• The Investigating Justice recommended dismissing the charges of gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression against Judge Perello.
• However, she found the judge guilty of undue delay in transmitting the records and recommended a fine of P20,000.00.

Legal Standards and Responsibilities

• The core issue was whether the delay constituted gross ignorance of the law or misconduct.
• The relevant rule (Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court) outlines the responsibilities of the clerk of court regarding the transmittal of records.

Conclusion on Charges of Misconduct

• The court found no evidence that Judge Perello acted with malice or deliberate intent to delay the transmittal of records.
• The judge's actions were deemed appropriate given the circumstances, and the charges of gross ignor...continue reading

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1846)

Case Background

• The case involves a verified letter-complaint filed on September 29, 2002, against Judge Norma C. Perello by multiple complainants who were parties in Civil Case No. 01-268.
• The complainants charged Judge Perello with gross ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and oppression due to her actions during the aforementioned civil case, which concerned illegal eviction, loss of property, damages, and other legal remedies against CST Enterprises, Inc. and others.

Procedural History

• The complainants initiated their civil action against CST on grounds of illegal eviction and sought various reliefs including damages, an injunction, and a temporary restraining order.
• CST Enterprises filed a motion to dismiss, which Judge Perello granted on November 22, 2001.
• The complainants requested reconsideration of this dismissal, which was denied on January 28, 2002.
• Following the denial, the complainants filed a Notice of Appeal on February 2, 2002, which Judge Perello acknowledged in an order on March 6, 2002.
• However, the records of the case were not transmitted to the Court of Appeals until December 12, 2002, creating a significant delay.

Allegations Against the Respondent

• Complainants alleged that Judge Perello had deliberately delayed the transmission of their appeal records, thus thwarting their quest for justice.
• They invoked Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, asserting that the respondent had acted with malice...continue reading