Case Digest: JOAQUIN VDA. DE AGREGADO v. BELLOSILLO, et al.

JOAQUIN VDA. DE AGREGADO v. BELLOSILLO, et al.

466 SCRA 29 (2005)

A judge is expected to observe the care and diligence required of him in the performance of his duties.

Complainant Susana Joaquin Vda. de Agregado filed a complaint for a sum of money and damages against Jose Marcell Panlilio et al. before the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC). A Motion to Declare Panlilio et al. in default was filed for their failure to file any responsive pleading within the reglementary period. The same was granted by Judge Edgardo B. Bellosillo. De Agregado subseqently filed a Motion for Execution.

Panlilio et al., through Atty. Dennis G. Manicad, appealed the decision rendered by Judge Bellosillo to the Regional Trial Court (RTC). Judge Bellosillo denied de Agregado’s Motion for Execution because the filing of the Notice of Appeal by Panlilio et al. was within the reglementary period.

De Agregado then filed a Motion for Reconsideration. On the scheduled hearing of such, she was informed by r Leonila S. Huerto that there was no hearing on that day and that her motion was deemed submitted for resolution. About a week later, de Agregado inquired about the status of her Motion for Reconsideration from Huerto who claimed not having seen it.

De Agregado’s counsel later to receive a notice from the Office of the Clerk of Court of RTC setting the raffle of the appealed case. This prompted de Agregado to administratively charge 1) Judge Bellosillo, 2) Huerto, and 3) Clerk III Theresa T. Banaban (Banaban). The Court Administrator recommended that the complaint be dismissed as against Judge Bellosillo and Banaban for lack of merit. Huerto is found guilty of simple neglect of duty and sentencing her to suffer the penalty of suspension for 1month and 1 day.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Bellosillo, Huerto and Banaban are administratively liable for not acting upon the Motion of Reconsideration of Joaquin vda. de Agregado

HELD:

A judge is expected to observe the care and diligence required of him in the performance of his duties. The only conclusion that can thus be derived from Judge Bellosillo’s reliance on Atty. Manicad’s representation is that he did not verify the record of the case or, if he did, he did not do so carefully. Clearly, Judge Bellosillo was remiss in observing the care and diligence expected of him in the discharge of his duties.

As against respondent Theresa Banaban, the complaint alleged that she was the one ‘who confirmed the setting of the hearing at 2:00 p.m. on June 20, 2003 as approved by OIC-Branch Clerk of Court Leonila Huerto. Even if true, there is nothing wrong about that confirmation. In her Comment, respondent Banaban stated that the motion for reconsideration did not pass through her and that she had no participation in any office work related to the appeal. Said respondent Banaban should be exonerated.