Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1718)
Complaint Details
The complainants contended that after a preliminary conference, Judge De Vera issued a pre-trial order requiring submission of position papers within ten days. Although the complainants’ attorney received the order on November 21, 2007, they submitted their position paper and evidence via registered mail on December 3, 2007, as the deadline fell on a Saturday. Judge De Vera denied the position paper’s admission, citing it as filed out of time, a decision communicated in an order dated December 12, 2007, without consideration of the proper computation of deadlines under Section 1, Rule 22 of the Rules of Court.
Response from the Respondent
In her defense, Judge De Vera claimed that the complaint was meritless and asserted that any errors were made in good faith. She argued that by her calculations, the position paper was submitted late, as she based her assessment on the assumption that it was filed on December 6, 2007, rather than the actual mailing date of December 3, 2007. Consequently, she maintained her decision to deny the admission of the position paper and characterized the complaint as an attempt to harass her following the adverse ruling against the complainants.
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Findings
The OCA reviewed the case and emphasized that a judge could be found administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law if the act in question was contrary to established law and the judge acted with bad faith, fraud, or dishonesty. They opined that Judge De Vera’s denial of the position paper was an evident failure to apply a basic legal principle, constituting gross ignorance of the law, despite her good faith reasoning.
Court's Ruling
The Supreme Court disagreed with the OCA's recommendation to impose sanctions on Judge De Vera. The Court emphasized that for gross ignorance of the law to be established, there must be a showing of bad faith or malice. In this instance, the mistakes made by Judge De Vera appeared to stem from a misunderstanding of procedural deadlines rather than any corrupt motive, leading the Court to dismiss the complaint on grounds of lack of merit.
Implications for Judicial Conduc
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-08-1718)
Case Overview
- Complainants: Atty. Rafael T. Martinez and spouses Dan and Edna Reyes.
- Respondent: Judge Grace Gliceria F. De Vera, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Carlos City, Pangasinan.
- Nature of Complaint: Gross Ignorance of the Law regarding Civil Case No. MTCC-1613 entitled "Letecia Samera vs. Sps. Dan Reyes and Edna Reyes."
- Date of Decision: March 16, 2011.
Background of the Case
- Complainants filed an administrative complaint against Judge De Vera for alleged gross ignorance of the law.
- The complaint arose from Judge De Vera's denial of the admission of the complainants' position paper, claiming it was filed out of time.
- Atty. Martinez represented the spouses Reyes as their counsel of record.
Facts of the Case
- A pre-trial order was issued by Judge De Vera, requiring the parties to submit their position papers within ten days from receipt, which Atty. Martinez received on November 21, 2007.
- The last day to file the position paper was December 1, 2007, but since this day fell on a Saturday, the complainants submitted their position paper via registered mail on December 3, 2007.
- On December 28, 2007, Atty. Martinez was informed by the Clerk of Court, Ms. Yolanda Basa, that the position paper w