OSORIO v. DIZON

 

EUSEBIO OSORIO, complainant, vs. JUDGE AGUSTIN S. DIZON and Branch Clerk of Court ATTY. REZA M. CASILA-DERAYUNAN, Regional Trial Court (Branch 80), Quezon City, respondents.

 [A.M. No. RTJ-04-1838. March 18, 2004.]
(Formerly AM OCA IPI No. 03-1832-RTJ)

FACTS:

Complainant Osorio is one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. Q-95-24507.

RTC-QC rendered its decision against plaintiffs-spouses Danilo and Rosita Amor and Spouses Eusebio and Gloria Osorio. 

Atty. Florentino L. Quendangan, filed a notice of appeal.

 

On September 25, 2002, Judge Dizon gave due course to the appeal and ordered the transmittal of the entire records to the Court of Appeals for further proceedings. However, the records were not forwarded to the appellate court.

Complainant's co-plaintiff, Danilo Amor, filed with the RTC an Urgent Motion to Discharge Counsel and to Withdraw Notice of Appeal, which was granted. The motion alleged, among others, that they did not authorize Atty. Quendangan to file a notice of appeal. 

Subsequently, Amor filed a Motion for Withdrawal of the urgent motion to discharge counsel and withdraw notice of appeal he had filed earlier.

Defendant Narciso Badua and his counsel, Atty. Ricardo C. Pilares, Jr. filed an opposition.

Judge Dizon issued an Order dated July 16, 2003, which provides that the Court has deemed it proper to set for hearing the incident in question. Meanwhile, the Order granting the Urgent Motion to Discharge Counsel and to Withdraw Notice of Appeal is hereby set aside until further orders from the Court. 

Defendants spouses Badua filed a Manifestation that they were no longer interested in the resolution of the pending incidentand prayed that the entire records be forwarded to the Court of Appeals which was granted by Judge Dizon in an Order dated November 11, 2003.  

Accordingly, the entire records of Civil Case No. Q-95-24507 were transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

In his complaint, OSORIO alleges, as follows: Eleven months had passed without the records of Civil Case No. 95-24507 being sent to the appellate court, a violation of the Rules requiring transmittal of records within the period of thirty days from the time the appeal was given due course.

The delay was a means to enable defendant Narciso Badua to lure his co-plaintiff Amor in filing a motion to discharge counsel and withdraw appeal which Judge Dizon granted without giving him (Osorio) and their lawyer the chance to comment thereon. 

 

Judge Dizon should not have acted on the motion since the thirty-day period had already lapsed. The granting of the motion caused him injustice since his interest in the case was different from that of Amor's.

 

When he went to see Amor, the latter promised to withdraw the motion which he did by filing a motion for withdrawal of the earlier motion. However, Judge Dizon, showing his bias in favor of defendants Badua, set the motion for hearing, thus giving the latter the opportunity to react accordingly. 

In his Comment, JUDGE DIZON explains: The non-transmittal of the records of Civil Case No. Q-95-24507 to the Court of Appeals was justified because of the heavy workload due to the fact that his court was constituted into a special drug court and since then he had been saddled with so many drug cases demanding summary and speedy hearing.

 

In her Comment, ATTY. CASILA-DERAYUNAN admits her failure to transmit the records within the thirty-day period citing as reasons the heavy burden of work, her administrative and supervisory duties, and the fact that the court had been designated as a special drug court.

She avers: There was no intention of causing prejudice to anybody. During the interim period that she failed to transmit the records to the appellate court, the plaintiffs and or their counsel never at any instance prompted her to act accordingly. The transmittal of the records was interrupted by the filing of Amor's Urgent Motion to Discharge Counsel and Withdraw Appeal which was favorably acted upon by Judge Dizon, and later, by Amor's filing of his withdrawal of motion.

 

Complainant OSORIO filed his Reply alleging that the creation of the court to a special drug court was not the cause of the delay in the transmittal of the records since after the filing of Amor's motion on May 23, 2003, Judge Dizon acted with dispatch on every proceedings subsequent thereto. Complainant insists that the motion is a litigated motion since the counsel to be discharged must be given his day in court to explain his side because his fees might be contingent as it is in this case.

 

In its evaluation, the COURT ADMINISTRATOR found that respondent Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Reza Casila-Derayunan was remiss in her duty of transmitting the records of the case to the Court of Appeals; and, that the respondent Judge had jurisdiction to hear plaintiff Amor's Motion for Withdrawal of the motion to discharge counsel and withdraw notice of appeal.

 

ISSUES:

1. Whether or not Clerk of Court Casila-Derayunan was remiss in the performance of her duty

2. Whether or not Judge Dizon is liable for the delay in the transmittal of the records.

3. Whether or not Judge Dizon exceeded the RTC’s jurisdiction when he acted on the Motion to Discharge Counsel and Withdraw Appeal

4. Whether or not Judge Dizon was correct in treating Amor's motion as a non-litigated motion and in granting it without any hearing

 

RULING:

1. Yes, Clerk of Court Casila-Derayunan was remiss in the performance of her duty under Section 10 of Rule 41 of the Rules of Court which provides:

Sec. 10. Duty of clerk of court of the lower court upon perfection of appeal. — Within thirty (30) days after perfection of all the appeals in accordance with the preceding section, it shall be the duty of the clerk of court of the lower court:

xxx xxx xxx

(d). To transmit the records to the appellate court.

 

She ought to know that she is required to transmit the complete records to the appellate court within thirty days after the perfection of the appeal. Based on the records, the appeal was given due course and the records were ordered elevated to the Court of Appeals as early as September 25, 2002 but the same was not transmitted within the 30-day period.

 

Her explanation that she was saddled with heavy workload is not an excuse for her not to perform her duties but serves only to mitigate her liability. The fact that complainant's co-plaintiff Amor filed an urgent motion did not exculpate her from liability because eight months had already lapsed without her transmitting the records to the appellate court when said motion was filed. 

 

It has been held that the failure of the clerk of court to transmit the records of a case constitutes negligence and warrants disciplinary action.  The clerk of court is an essential officer of our judicial system. As an officer of the court, he performs delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. Among the duties of the Branch Clerk of Court is the prompt and orderly transmittal of appealed cases and the records to the appellate court.  The Branch Clerk of Court is responsible for seeing to it that the records of appealed cases are properly sent to the appropriate appellate court without delay.  The reason for the rule requiring prompt transmittal of the records of appealed cases to the appellate court is to ensure the speedy disposition of the case. Otherwise, the speedy administration of justice would be hampered. 

2. No, Judge Dizon is not liable for the delay in the transmittal of the records.

While he has supervision over respondent Casila-Derayunan, he cannot be expected to constantly check on the latter's performance of his duties since Atty. Derayunan is presumed to be a responsible employee. 

3. No,Judge Dizon did not exceed the RTC’s jurisdiction when he acted on the Motion to Discharge Counsel and Withdraw Appeal

Rule 41, Section 9 of the Rules of Court provides:

Sec. 9. Perfection of appeal; effect thereof. — xxx xxx xxx

 

In either case, prior to the transmittal of the original record or the record on appeal, the court may issue orders for the protection and preservation of the rights of the parties which do not involve any matter litigated by the appeal, approve compromises, permit appeals of indigent litigants, order execution pending appeal in accordance with section 2 of Rule 39, and allow withdrawal of the appeal. (Emphasis supplied).

Clearly, upon the perfection of appeal, the trial court loses jurisdiction over the case, but prior to the transmittal of the records to the appellate court, it can still exercise residual jurisdiction such as allowing the withdrawal of appeal. At the time the Motion to Discharge Counsel and Withdraw Appeal was filed by complainant's co-plaintiff Amor, the records were not yet forwarded to the appellate court. Thus, respondent judge did not exceed the trial court's jurisdiction when he acted on the motion.

 

4. No, Judge Dizon was not correct in treating Amor's motion as a non-litigated motion and in granting it without any hearing.

While the defendants would naturally not oppose such a motion, Amor had other co-plaintiffs, herein complainant Osorio and his wife who could be prejudiced by the withdrawal of their appeal. Thus, the respondent judge should have set the motion for hearing so as to give the other plaintiffs the chance to be heard; or, he should have required complainant and his wife to comment on said motion. As a judge, he should exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with the statutes and the procedural laws. 

Notwithstanding the act of respondent judge in granting the motion without setting the same for hearing, the Court finds that such action is not tantamount to a grave misconduct. Judges may not be held administratively responsible for every error or mistake in the performance of their duties; otherwise that would make their position unbearable. To merit disciplinary sanction, the error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious, deliberate, or in bad faith. In the absence of a showing to the contrary, defective or erroneous decision or order is presumed to have been issued in good faith.

Thus, respondent Judge should merely be admonished for having failed to exercise due care in the performance of his adjudicatory functions. At any rate, the Order granting the subject Motion to Discharge Counsel and Withdraw Notice of Appeal had been subsequently set aside by the respondent Judge in an Order dated July 16, 2003. As mentioned in the early part of this decision, the records of Civil Case No. Q-95-24507 had already been transmitted to the Court of Appeals.

WHEREFORE, respondent Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Reza Casila-Derayunan is ordered to pay a fine in the amount of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). Respondent Judge Agustin S. Dizon is ADMONISHED for having failed to exercise that degree of care required of him in the performance of his judicial functions.