RAPSING v. OCA

ROGER RAPSING, Complainant, vs. THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, JUDGE CARIDAD M. WALSE, LUTERO] and CELESTINA D. ROTA, respondents.

A.M. No. MTJ-17-1894 [Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 11-2355-MTJ]

April 04, 2017

FACTS:

In the February 22, 2011 Amended Affidavit-Complaint, Roger Rapsing (Rapsing) accused Presiding Judge Caridad M. Walse-Lutero (Judge Walse-Lutero) of Branch 34, Metropolitan Trial Court, Quezon City of undue delay in resolving two (2) motions filed by his counsel in Civil Case No. 06-35758, entitled Roger Rapsing v. Spouses Eddie and Luzviminda Rapsing, for Ejectment.

The motions were: (1) Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Admission dated August 15, 2008 and filed on August 20, 2008; and (2) Motion to Inhibit dated July 24, 2008 and filed on July 25, 2008. The Manifestation with Motion to Withdraw Admission arose from the January 17, 2008 Order of respondent Judge Walse-Lutero denying complainant's motion to correct the pre-trial order.Complainant moved for reconsideration but this was denied by the respondent judge in an Order dated July 4, 2008, prompting complainant to file a Motion to Inhibit on July 25, 2008.

During the hearing of the Motion to Inhibit on August 15, 2008, the matter of the denial of the motion to correct the pre-trial order was also discussed. Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero informed complainant's counsel that the proper remedy to remove the supposed admission of his client as contained in the pre-trial order was to file a withdrawal of admission and not correction of the pre-trial order. Consequently, it was agreed upon that the resolution of the motion to inhibit shall be held in abeyance pending the filing of the proper motion. The Motion to Withdraw Admission was subsequently filed on August 20, 2008, and was deemed submitted for resolution in the Order dated September 12, 2008. Considering that the motion had remained unresolved for a considerable length of time, complainant argued that respondent Judge Walse-Lutero should be held liable for undue delay. In First Indorsement dated April 8, 2011, Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez referred the complaint to Judge Walse-Lutero for comment.

On April 18, 2012, the Office of the Court Administrator received respondent Judge Walse-Lutero's Comment. Judge Walse-Lutero denied delaying the resolution of the motions. She explained that the Branch Clerk of Court failed to return the record of the case to her for the resolution of the motions. Respondent averred that she discovered the unresolved motions only in March 2011, when her staff, upon coming from the Supreme Court, informed her of the present administrative complaint.

Respondent added that Ms. Shernalyn Mallari-Carian (Carian), the Docket Clerk-in-Charge, reasoned her being new in her post when queried for failure to refer the record of Civil Case No. 06-35758 to respondent Judge Walse-Lutero. Carian averred that the former Clerk-in-Charge turned over all the records of the civil cases to the Branch Clerk of Court Ms. Celestina Rota (Rota). Carian pointed out that complainant had been following up the case with Rota. For her part, Rota admitted that "even with the intermittent follow-up of the herein parties in this case, [she] failed to refer the case to [respondent Judge Walse-Lutero] for resolution of the pending incident due to the volume of civil cases also for decision."

Judge Walse-Lutero further affirmed that "[u]pon receipt of the record, [she] discovered that it was badly damaged by rain water that leaked through [the court's] ceiling." When she asked Rota why the latter did not inform her about the damage or ask the parties to replace the drenched documents, Rota merely shrugged and said, "[K]aya nga judge." Nonetheless, Judge Walse-Lutero alleged that after the record was reconstituted, she promptly resolved all pending incidents and rendered her decision in the subject case.

Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero revealed that with the 3,800 cases she inherited from the previous presiding judges, as well as the 80 to 130 cases that were raffled to her branch on a monthly basis, "it [was] impossible for [her] to monitor each and every case before [the] court." Therefore, she "had to rely on [Rota] to inform [her] of cases that require[d] prompt action."Unfortunately, Rota had been greatly remiss in the performance of her duties. For instance, when respondent Judge Walse-Lutero took over, she discovered that almost 200 cases with pending motions or submitted for decision were bundled with archived ones. Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero consistently gave "unsatisfactory" ratings to Rota and once raised the issue of her incompetence before then Court Administrator Jose P. Perez. Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero was advised by the Office of the Administrative Services of the Office of the Court Administrator to direct Rota "to explain why she should not be dropped from the service." Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero did as instructed and Rota had the audacity to reply: "Ibalato mo na sa akin itong rating judge." Respondent Judge Walse-Lutero has since submitted several memoranda to the Office of the Court Administrator requesting to drop Rota from the rolls.

Considering Judge Walse-Lutero's explanation, particularly her averments regarding Rota's neglect, this Court resolved to furnish Rota with copies of the Affidavit-Complaint and of the Comment of Judge Walse-Lutero dated April 16, 2012. This Court equally decided to require her to explain "why she should not be administratively held liable for gross neglect of duty."

On February 29, 2016, the Office of the Court Administrator received Rota's comment.

Rota attributed her "neglect/omission/lapse" to the high caseload of the court, particularly in criminal cases. She added that the number of court personnel in her branch was not proportionate to the court's caseload.

Rota also explained that the case record got wet during the Typhoon Ondoy through a leak in the roof. She allegedly apologized for it, and rectified the damage by working on Saturdays.

Finally, on the high volume of cases, Rota explained that while both civil and criminal cases were equally important, the court gave priority to criminal cases especially those involving detention prisoners.

The Office of the Court Administrator, in its Memorandum dated August 5, 2016, recommended the dismissal of the case against Judge Walse-Lutero, with a reminder for her "to be more meticulous and zealous in organizing and supervising the work of her subordinates."

ISSUE: 

Whether or not Presiding Judge Caridad M. Walse-Lutero and Branch Clerk of Court Celestina D. Rota are administratively held liable for gross neglect of duty?

HELD:

We find Judge Walse-Lutero liable for neglecting her duty to resolve motions expeditiously. On the other hand, we agree with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator that Rota is guilty of gross neglect of duty. This Court resolves to re-docket the present administrative case as a regular administrative matter against Presiding Judge Caridad M. Walse-Lutero and Branch Clerk of Court Celestina D. Rota.

Presiding Judge Caridad M. Walse-Lutero is ADMONISHED for her undue delay in resolving the motions in Civil Case No. 06-35758.

Branch Clerk of Court Celestina D. Rota is found GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and is hereby DISMISSED from service. All her benefits, except accrued leave credits, if any, are declared FORFEITED, with prejudice to re-employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned and controlled corporations and financial institutions.