A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461 - Dela Cruz vs. Pascua

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461)

Factual Background

On May 26, 1995, the complainant filed with the RTC an election protest against Mayor Jose Bunoan, Jr., docketed as Sp. Proc. Case No. 0743-T, and presided over by the respondent judge. Thereafter, Nena Ocana and Nelson Cuaresma moved to intervene. The respondent judge denied their motion for having been filed out of time. Ocana and Cuaresma then sought review through a Petition by Appeal on Certiorari with the COMELEC, docketed as SPR No. 13-95, but that petition was dismissed for lack of merit.

The administrative complaint that followed alleged that the respondent judge committed falsification of public document when she issued an order dated August 28, 1995 deferring the hearing of Sp. Proc. Case No. 0743-T until further orders. In that order, the respondent judge stated that Ocana and Cuaresma had filed a Petition by Appeal on Certiorari questioning the denial of their intervention with this Court. The complainant contended that the respondent was referring to an appeal that was actually taken to the COMELEC rather than to the Supreme Court.

The complaint further alleged that the respondent judge violated Section 17 (par. 1), Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure by delaying the election protest’s disposition. Specifically, on December 26, 1995, the respondent judge issued an order directing the case to be archived on the ground that the Court could not act because Ocana and Cuaresma had gone to the Supreme Court. Since the case was archived, the complainant alleged that there was a delay of more than six (6) months from the August 28, 1995 deferral until the records were retrieved and set again for hearing on February 29, 1996.

The complainant also alleged that the respondent judge antedated an order retrieving the records from the archives and reviving the case. The complainant pointed out that while his motion to retrieve the case from the archives and set it for hearing was filed only on February 15, 1996, the respondent judge had issued her order on February 8, 1996.

Administrative Referral and Respondent’s Explanation

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the administrative complaint to the respondent for comment. The respondent judge admitted that she committed what she characterized as an honest and innocuous error in the August 28, 1995 order. She explained that Ocana and Cuaresma had shown her what they presented as a copy of their Petition by Appeal on Certiorari, and that she believed, based on that showing, that the petition had been brought to this Court rather than to the COMELEC.

With that belief, the respondent judge issued the December 26, 1995 order archiving the election protest. She claimed that, despite the COMELEC dismissal of the intervenors’ appeal, neither party moved to resume the proceedings. This, according to her, led her to maintain the assumption that the matter was still pending at the Supreme Court level.

On the allegation of antedating, the respondent judge asserted that her February 8, 1996 order was prepared on February 8 but mailed on February 13, 1996. The complainant received his copy on February 14, 1996, while both his lawyers received theirs on February 15, 1996. She added that although the complainant’s motion was dated February 6, 1996, it was actually filed with the court only on February 15, 1996. The respondent therefore maintained that there was no ante-dating.

The record also showed that in a letter dated December 22, 1997, complainant’s counsel, Atty. Maximo A. Maceren, informed the OCA that the complainant was withdrawing the election protest. The stated reason was that the case, pending for two (2) years and six (6) months, would only result in an empty victory.

Court Administrator’s Evaluation and Recommendation

After the respondent compulsorily retired on September 18, 1998, the then Court Administrator, Alfredo Benipayo, submitted a report dated May 13, 1999. He evaluated that the early progress of the election protest had been prevented by the respondent judge’s actions. He considered the respondent’s orders of August 28 and August 29, 1995, which canceled scheduled hearings, and her order dated December 26, 1995, which sent the case to the archives on the basis of her perception that a Petition by certiorari was pending in the Supreme Court. He concluded that these actions resulted in the loss of a substantial period that the election case required urgently.

The Court Administrator further found that there was no allegation or proof that the delays were motivated by corrupt considerations. He accepted the respondent judge’s position that she honestly believed a petition was pending because she was shown a copy of it by the intervenors. Nevertheless, he held that the respondent judge was negligent in issuing the two orders. He ruled that the respondent’s reliance on the intervenors’ presentation was unwarranted and that she should have waited for notice from the Supreme Court or, absent a restraining order, proceeded with the election case with dispatch until its termination.

The evaluation emphasized that election protests require reasonable speed in view of the electorate’s need to know the true will. It noted the risk of “empty victories” if postponements lead to the protestant’s delayed, or ineffectual, vindication. It characterized the respondent’s failure to verify whether a case was actually pending before the Supreme Court as a ground for administrative punishment.

As to the allegation that the respondent falsified the order retrieving the case from the archives, the Court Administrator believed that she had satisfactorily explained her actions. He recommended that the respondent be fined P10,000.00, to be deducted from her retirement benefits.

Issues and the Parties’ Contentions

The administrative complaint raised two principal concerns: first, whether the respondent judge’s orders amounted to inefficiency and violated Section 17 (par. 1), Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure due to the undue delay in the disposition of the election protest; and second, whether those orders involved falsification through alleged antedating.

The complainant maintained that the respondent judge’s orders were based on a mistaken premise about a petition being pending in the Supreme Court rather than at the COMELEC level, and that the resulting archiving caused a delay of almost six months. He also insisted that the retrieval order dated February 8, 1996 was unlawfully issued earlier than the filing of his motion on February 15, 1996.

The respondent judge countered that her misdescription in the August 28, 1995 order was due to an honest and non-malicious error grounded on the intervenors’ showing of a copy of their petition. She also explained that the retrieval order was not antedated, and that differences in receipt by the complainant and counsel were consistent with mailing and actual filing dates.

Ruling and Disposition

After reviewing the records, the Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of then Court Administrator Benipayo. The Court held that the respondent judge’s conduct was improper and censurable, and found her guilty of inefficiency. It imposed a fine of P10,000.00, to be deducted from her retirement benefits.

The Court sustained its view that the respondent judge had been negligent and ineffective in managing the case, even while acknowledging that there was no showing of corrupt intent. It stressed that the respondent’s actions produced an undue delay in the resolution of the election protest, a category of cases that demands expeditious handling.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court anchored its reasoning on several linked findings. First, it recognized that the respondent judge herself admitted in her comment that both intervenors showed her a copy of their petition. The Court held that what the respondent should have done was to read the petition carefully and ascertain where it was actually filed. The Court emphasized that, had she done so, she should have known that the petition was not elevated to this Court but to the COMELEC.

Second, the Court addressed the respondent judge’s explanation that she acted out of courtesy to the Court. The Court ruled that, even assuming the intervenors’ petition had been brought to this Court, the respondent judge should not have issued the challenged orders. It invoked Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92, as amended, which allowed archiving a civil case only in specific instances, namely: (a) while parties were in the process of settlement with a suspension not exceeding ninety days; (b) when an interlocutory order or incident was elevated and pending resolution for an indefinite period before a higher court that had issued a temporary restraining order or writ of preliminary injunction; or (c) when the defendant could not be served with summons within six months through no fault or neglect of the plaintiff. The Court found none of those conditions present in the case. Accordingly, the orders sending the election protest to the archives were not justified under the circular.

Third, the Court tied the delay directly to the respondent’s negligence. It stated that the hearing of the election protest remained dormant from August 28, 1995, when the respondent issued the postponement order, until February 8, 1996, when she ordered retrieval of the records from the archives and revival of the case. It held that the election protes

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Ricardo Dela Cruz filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Hon. Herminia M. Pascua, then Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur.
The complaint was anchored on allegations of falsification of public document and violation of Section 17 (par. 1), Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure relating to the handling of an election protest.
The OCA referred the administrative complaint to the respondent judge for her comment.
The Court Administrator’s evaluation and recommendation were reviewed on the basis of the administrative records and the respondent judge’s explanations.
The Court ultimately found respondent judge guilty of inefficiency and imposed a fine to be deducted from her retirement benefits.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant Ricardo Dela Cruz alleged that respondent judge committed falsification through an order dated August 28, 1995 which deferred the hearing in Sp. Proc. Case No. 0743-T.
The alleged basis for falsification was respondent judge’s statement in the August 28, 1995 order that a petition by appeal on certiorari was filed with the Supreme Court by Nena Ocana and Nelson Cuaresma, challenging the denial of their motion for intervention.
Complainant asserted that the intervenors did not file such petition with the Supreme Court, and that the appeal—if any—was taken to the COMELEC.
Complainant also alleged that respondent judge violated Section 17 (par. 1), Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure by delaying the disposition of his election protest.
On December 26, 1995, respondent judge directed motu proprio that the election protest be archived, reasoning that the Court could not act because the intervenors had gone to the Supreme Court.
The case being archived, complainant alleged a delay of more than six (6) months from August 28, 1995 until the records were retrieved and the case was set for hearing on February 29, 1996.
Complainant further alleged that respondent judge antedated the order of February 8, 1996 retrieving the records from the archives and reviving the election protest.
Complainant emphasized that his motion to retrieve the case from the archives was filed only on February 15, 1996, while the questioned order allegedly bore an earlier date.

Election Protest Background

On May 26, 1995, Ricardo Dela Cruz filed an election protest with the RTC presided by respondent judge against Mayor Jose Bunoan, Jr., docketed as Sp. Proc. Case No. 0743-T.
After filing, Nena Ocana and Nelson Cuaresma moved for intervention, but respondent judge denied the motion for being filed out of time.
Ocana and Cuaresma filed a Petition by Appeal on Certiorari with the COMELEC, docketed as SPR No. 13-95, but it was dismissed for lack of merit.
Complainant later withdrew the election protest on December 22, 1997, through a letter by his counsel Atty. Maximo A. Maceren, stating that the protest had already been pending for two (2) years and six (6) months.

Respondent Judge’s Defenses

Respondent judge explained that the delays in the election protest’s resolution were caused by both the protestant and the protestee.
She admitted committing an honest and innocuous error when she stated on August 28, 1995 that the intervenors filed an appeal to the Supreme Court rather than to the COMELEC.
She maintained that her understanding came from the intervenors who allegedly showed her a copy of their petition, leading her to believe certiorari proceedings were pending before the Supreme Court.
She defended her December 26, 1995 order archiving the case by asserting that, despite the COMELEC dismissal of the intervenors’ appeal, the parties did not move to resume proceedings.
On the alleged antedating, respondent judge claimed that the February 8, 1996 order retrieving the records was prepared earlier but mailed only on February 13, 1996.
She asserted that complainant received his copy on February 14, 1996, while his lawyers received their copies on February 15, 1996.
She stated that complainant’s motion dated February 6, 1996 was filed in her court only on February 15, 1996, which she considered consistent with no antedating.
Judge Pascua compulsorily retired on September 18, 1998, which became relevant only to the administrative penalty mechanics involving deductions from retirement benefits.

OCA Evaluation and Recommendation

The Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo, in a report dated May 13, 1999, found that respondent judge’s early decisions in the election protest were prevented by the respondent’s actions.
The Court Administrator considered respondent judge’s August 28 and 29, 1995 postponement orders and her December 26, 1995 archiving order as causing the loss of substantial time in a case requiring urgent disposition.
The evaluation acknowledged no allegation and no proof that respondent judge’s delays were motivated by corrupt considerations, given the respondent’s assertion of honest belief.
The OCA nevertheless found respondent judge negligent for relying on the intervenors’ showing of an