Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-18-2527)
Legal Background of the Case
The plaintiffs filed a complaint for Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Shareholdings on December 19, 2012, and the case was assigned to RTC Branch 11. Atty. Mahinay contended that Judge Daomilas, Jr. failed to act on a request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and a Writ of Preliminary Injunction for over two years, violating the Interim Rules of Procedure for Intra-Corporate Controversies.
Delayed Judicial Action
On November 3, 2015, Atty. Mahinay sought assistance from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) regarding the delay. Subsequently, on November 6, 2015, the Judge granted a Writ of Preliminary Injunction, conditioned upon the posting of a bond. The defendants contested this order but also filed for a counter-bond.
Ongoing Litigation and Further Delays
Despite multiple letters and filings, delays continued. Atty. Mahinay wrote again on January 18, 2016, highlighting inaction regarding the issuance of the injunctive writ. On January 20, 2016, Judge Daomilas, Jr. issued an order allowing defendants to post a counter-bond. This order contrasted with the prior November order, prompting the plaintiffs to seek further judicial intervention through certiorari.
Accusations Against the Clerk of Court
Atty. Mahinay also accused Atty. Faelnar-Binongo of colluding with the Judge to delay proceedings. In response, Atty. Faelnar-Binongo clarified that her role was ministerial, asserting that she could not refuse to accept pleadings due to their nature.
Defense by the Respondents
In subsequent comments, both respondents denied the allegations. Judge Daomilas explained the constraints of his workload, having been assigned to multiple locations with limited staff. He contended that his decisions were consistent with judicial rules and highlighted the urgency needed in certain motions.
OCA's Findings and Recommendations
The OCA, in its report, concluded that Judge Daomilas, Jr. was guilty of Undue Delay in Rendering an Order, noting that imperative time frames mandated by the Constitution were breached. However, it recommended that the penalty be mitigated to a reprimand due to the Judge's heavy caseload.
Court's Ruling and Conclusions
The Court concurred with the OCA's findings but ultimately modified the penalty, imposing a fine of Five Thousand P
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-18-2527)
Case Overview
- Parties Involved: Atty. Makilito B. Mahinay (Complainant) vs. Hon. Ramon B. Daomilas, Jr. (Presiding Judge) and Atty. Rosadey E. Faelnar-Binongo (Clerk of Court V)
- Court: Branch 11, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, Cebu
- Case Reference: A.M. No. RTJ-18-2527 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 16-4563-RTJ)
- Decision Date: June 18, 2018
- Nature of Complaint: Gross inexcusable negligence and gross ignorance of the law
Antecedents
- Atty. Mahinay filed a complaint on April 18, 2016, against the respondents alleging negligence and ignorance regarding SRC Case No. SRC-223-CEB.
- The case involved a complaint for Judicial Declaration of Nullity of Shareholdings with a prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction filed on December 19, 2012.
- The case was raffled to Judge Daomilas, Jr., who allegedly failed to act on the request for a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) and/or Writ of Preliminary Injunction for over two years.
Allegations Against Respondents
- Atty. Mahinay accused Judge Daomilas, Jr. of not resolving the TRO request, which was submitted for resolution in March 2013, leading to undue delay.
- Respondent Judge issued an order on November 6, 2015, granting a Writ of Preliminary Injunction conditioned upon a bond, but further actions were delayed.
- Defendants filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which was set for immediate hearing, creating further complications.
- Atty. Mahinay complained that Clerk of Court Faelnar-Binongo