Office of the Court Administrator v. Ferraris, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-21-001 (Resolution), [December 6, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Office of the Court Administrator v. Ferraris, Jr.

 A.M. No. MTJ-21-001 (Resolution), [December 6, 2022]

EN BANC, LOPEZ, M.V 

Public's faith and confidence in judicial system; Judiciary Personnel; Clerk of Court

 

The public's faith and confidence in the judicial system depend, to a large extent, on the judicious and prompt disposition of cases and other matters pending before the courts. The nature of work of those connected with an office charged with the dispensation of justice, from the presiding judge to the lowest clerk, requires them to serve with the highest degree of efficiency and responsibility to maintain public confidence in the judiciary.

 

Due to the compulsory retirement of Judge Rufino S. Ferraris, Jr., the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 7, Davao City. The audit revealed various delays and irregularities in the court's operations, including delays in rendering judgments, resolving pending motions, executing writs of execution, and handling criminal cases. Judge Ferraris, Jr. was found to have committed irregularities by failing to decide on civil cases within the prescribed period, neglecting motions in civil and criminal cases, and not taking appropriate actions in several cases. Furthermore, the MTCC, Branch 7, failed to address hundreds of criminal cases, particularly those under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Additionally, the court's oversight in checking the actual status of pending cases contributed to further delays. As a result, both Judge Ferraris, Jr. and Ms. Odruña, the Clerk of Court and former sheriff, were recommended to be held administratively liable for their respective roles in the identified irregularities.

 

Whether or not Judge Ferraris, Jr. and Odruña are administratively liable. 

YES. Both Judge Ferraris, Jr. and Odruña should be held administratively liable.

Judge Ferraris, Jr. is found guilty of various administrative offenses, including two counts of gross neglect of duty, one count of simple neglect of duty, and one count of violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. Gross neglect of duty refers to serious negligence endangering public welfare, while simple neglect of duty signifies failure to give proper attention to assigned tasks. The judge's delays in resolving cases, motions, and pending incidents constitute gross neglect, while failure to act in over 400 criminal cases and violations of court rules represent serious breaches of duty. Mitigating factors such as Judge Ferraris, Jr.'s advanced age and the economic impact of the pandemic are considered, leading to the decision not to impose suspension from service, as he has already retired.

Ms. Odruña is found to have committed both gross negligence and simple neglect of duty in various aspects of her role as Clerk of Court and former sheriff. Her gross negligence is evidenced by her failure to timely release 274 orders in criminal cases and her inability to ensure that court personnel under her supervision fulfill their duties regarding case records management. Additionally, as a sheriff, she demonstrated gross neglect by not promptly reporting to the court regarding unsatisfied writs of execution, as required by law. Sixty-three (63) writs assigned to her remained unimplemented or unserved for an extended period, with returns submitted years later without adequate explanation for the delay. These actions collectively demonstrate Ms. Odruña's failure to fulfill her duties effectively, resulting in her administrative liability. The Court also finds Ms. Vivian N. Odruña GUILTY of two (2) counts of the serious charge of gross neglect of duty; and one (1) count of the less serious charge of simple neglect of duty.

 

 

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Sugar Regulatory Administration v. Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc., G.R. No. 253821, [March 6, 2023]

 CASE DIGEST

Sugar Regulatory Administration v. Central Azucarera De Bais, Inc.

 G.R. No. 253821, [March 6, 2023]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V 

Petition for Certiorari; Pure Questions of Law; Dismissal of improper appeal to the Court of Appeals.

 

The following entail pure questions of law—jurisdiction of an administrative agency; whether a litigant is a real party-in-interest; and whether a statute or administrative regulation repealed another. 

The Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) issued Sugar Orders that allocated Class "D" world market sugar to accredited Class "F" ethanol producers. Central Azucarera, questioning the legality of these orders, filed a Petition for Declaratory Relief before the Regional Trial Court (RTC). After the parties agreed that there were no factual issues, Central Azucarera moved for summary judgment. The RTC ruled in favor of Central Azucarera, declaring the Sugar Orders null and void, stating that ethanol manufacturers fall under the jurisdiction of the Department of Energy (DOE), not the SRA. The SRA appealed to the Court of Appeals (CA), but Central Azucarera argued for dismissal, claiming that the appeal raised purely legal issues and should have been directly filed with the Supreme Court. The CA agreed and dismissed the appeal, noting that the controversy involved purely legal questions and thus should have been addressed through a petition for review on certiorari before the Supreme Court under Rule 45.

 

Whether or not the controversy in the case at bar is purely legal and the SRA should have directly filed an appeal with the SC. 

YES. The SRA raised pure questions of law in its appeal. Thus, it availed of the wrong mode of appeal. The Rules of Court outline three modes of appeal from Regional Trial Court (RTC) decisions: ordinary appeal, petition for review, and appeal by certiorari. Each mode corresponds to specific circumstances and allows for different types of questions to be raised. A question of law pertains to doubts about applicable laws or jurisprudence, without requiring an assessment of evidence's probative value, while a question of fact involves disputes over the truth of alleged facts.

In this case, the Sugar Regulatory Administration (SRA) raised pure questions of law in its appeal regarding the validity and interpretation of its orders. The issues raised, including the real party-in-interest status and mootness of the case, are questions of law and do not necessitate an examination of factual evidence. Therefore, the Court of Appeals (CA) correctly dismissed the appeal, as the proper mode of review should have been a petition for review on certiorari to the Supreme Court.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

Ismael v. People, G.R. Nos. 234435-36, [February 6, 2023]

 CASE DIGEST

Ismael v. People

 G.R. Nos. 234435-36, [February 6, 2023]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V

 

Speedy disposition of cases; Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against him 

An information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one person is charged except that the court cannot pass verdict on the co-conspirators who were not charged in the information. 

 

The Municipality of Lantawanin, Basilan, has faced persistent arrears on unremitted GSIS premiums since 1997, aggravated by accumulated penalties during Mayor Ismael's term starting in 2001. Despite collection letters sent to the mayor's office for arrears from January 1999 to February 2003, the obligations remained outstanding, leading to the suspension of members' loan privileges. Vice Mayor Dalugdugan and others filed a complaint against petitioners for malversation of public funds, resulting in charges before the Sandiganbayan for violation of Section 3(e) of RA No. 3019 and violations of Sections 3.3.1 and 3.4, Rule III of the IRR of RA No. 8291. The Sandiganbayan convicted the petitioners. 

Petitioners attack the validity of the Informations as they alleged conspiracy but failed to implead the municipal accountant and budget officer, who are indispensable in consummating the offenses charged. Petitioners submit that they cannot be expected to discharge their respective duties in the remittance of the GSIS contributions without the issuance of the certificate of availability of funds and remittance vouchers by the municipal accountant and budget officer. Hence, for petitioners, such incomplete allegation in the

Informations violated their constitutional right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them. They also argue that their right to speedy disposition of cases was also violated since the Informations were filed on June 5, 2005, but resolved only on August 2, 2017. They maintain that their failure to remit was due to several factors beyond their control, such as the terrorism activities in the area which disparaged their municipality for years, the arrearages left by the previous administration which inflated due to penalties, and the limited resources of the municipality to meet its fiscal demands. 

 

Whether or not the petitioners' right to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusations against them was violated. 

NO. The non-inclusion of other conspirators in the indictment does not violate the right to be fully informed of the nature and cause of the accusation against the accused. The Constitution mandates that the accused be informed of the accusation's nature and cause, as outlined in Section 14(2), Article III. Rule 110, Section 6 of the Rules of Court specifies necessary allegations in a criminal information, including the accused's name, offense designation, acts or omissions constituting the offense, offended party's name, approximate date of offense commission, and place of offense. Section 9 of the same Rule requires clear and concise language to inform the accused of the offense charged. In this case, the Informations against the petitioners sufficiently stated their failure to ensure the municipality's GSIS contributions' full and timely remittance. The indictment of purported conspirators and their roles is not necessary for the Informations' sufficiency. Tan, Jr. v. Sandiganbayan affirms that an information alleging conspiracy can stand even if only one person is charged, although the court cannot pass judgment on co-conspirators not charged.

Whether or not the petitioners' right to the speedy disposition of cases was violated. 

NO. The mere delay in proceedings does not necessarily violate the right to speedy disposition of cases or speedy trial. The determination of whether a delay is inordinate depends on the examination of the facts and circumstances of the case. Courts assess whether the delay is reasonable considering the complexity of the case and the timely invocation of the accused's rights. In this case, although there was a lengthy delay in the proceedings, the petitioners were not blameless, as they contributed to the delay by not complying with procedural requirements. Their actions demonstrated a renunciation of their rights to speedy disposition of the case and speedy trial. Additionally, the delay did not result in significant prejudice to the petitioners, and there was no evidence of arbitrariness, vexation, or oppression in the delay. Therefore, the delay was not deemed unconstitutional as it was not objected to in a timely manner and did not cause substantial harm to the petitioners.

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

Puregold Price Club, Inc. v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 244374 (Resolution), [February 15, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Puregold Price Club, Inc. v. Court of Appeals

G.R. No. 244374 (Resolution), [February 15, 2022]

FIRST, LOPEZ, M.V 

Certiorari; 60-day period in Petition for Certiorari (rule 65); Notice

 

When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon such counsel. Notice to the client or to any other lawyer other than the counsel of record, is not notice in law. 

 

Puregold Price Club, Inc. (PPCI) hired Renato M. Cruz, Jr. as a probationary store head, later appointing him as a store officer/manager at Puregold Extra. Renato filed an illegal dismissal case against Puregold Extra and its officers. The Labor Arbiter (LA) ruled in Renato's favor due to the respondents' absence, prompting PPCI to seek annulment of the decision, alleging improper joinder and lack of summons. The National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) remanded the case to the LA, but Renato's subsequent appeal was denied. He then petitioned for certiorari before the Court of Appeals (CA), arguing that his filing was timely filed on March 13, 2017. Meanwhile, the LA found that PPCI dismissed Renato for just cause, a decision upheld by the NLRC. While Renato's CA petition was granted, PPCI contends it was filed beyond the 60-day period. PPCI argues that Renato's counsel received the NLRC Resolution on December 29, 2016, requiring a petition by February 27, 2017 to avail a petition for certiorari. 

 

Whether or not CA committed grave abuse of discretion in giving due course to Renato's petition despite being filed out of time. 

YES. The CA erred in giving due course to Renato's petition for certiorari for being filed out of time. The court emphasized the strict filing deadline of sixty (60) days for petitions for certiorari from the notice of judgment or denial of a motion for reconsideration. Renato argued that the period commenced on January 12, 2017, when he purportedly received the NLRC resolution. However, the court ruled that the period began on December 29, 2016, the date Renato's counsel received the resolution, per Rule III of the 2011 NLRC Rules of Procedure. When a party is represented by counsel of record, service of orders and notices must be made upon such counsel. Hence, it was on December 29, 2016 when the notice was received by Renato’s counsel that the 60-day reglementary period starts to accrue.

Consequently, the March 13,2027 petition should have been dismissed for being time-barred. Court of Appeals should have dismissed it outright.

 

 

 CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Figueroa v. Sandiganbayan, Special Third Division, G.R. Nos. 235965-66, [February 15, 2022]

 CASE DIGEST

Figueroa v. Sandiganbayan, Special Third Division

 G.R. Nos. 235965-66, [February 15, 2022]

FIRST, LOPEZ, M.V 

Inordinate Delay; Speedy Disposition of cases

 

An accused has no duty to bring himself to trial. The accused must be spared from the rigors and expense of a full-blown trial where it is clear that inordinate and vexatious delays crept the conduct of preliminary investigation which are violative of the constitutional guarantee to speedy disposition of cases. 

 

The Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR) lodged a corruption complaint against Rene Figueroa and other officers, initiating a preliminary investigation on July 19, 2011. By July 29 of the same year, the Office of the Ombudsman directed Rene and his co-accused to submit their counter-affidavits within ten days. Subsequently, on August 16, 2011 Rene requested an extension of ten additional days to file his counter-affidavit, which was granted. He submitted his counter-affidavit on September 5,2011. The Ombudsman recommended filing charges against Rene and others for violation of Sections 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019 on September 22, 2014. Charges were filed before the Sandiganbayan on June 3, 2016, and the amended informations were admitted on July 4, 2017. Rene moved to quash the informations on July 20, 2017, citing undue delay in case handling, as more than six years had passed since the complaint was filed without a decision on the charges to be filed. However, the Sandiganbayan denied the motion to quash. 

 

Whether or not the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction in denying Rene's motion to quash the informations. 

YES. The Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion in denying the motion to quash. 

Article III, Section 16 of the 1987 Constitution safeguards individuals' entitlement to a speedy disposition of cases in all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies. Cagang v. Sandiganbayan delineates the approach for assessing claims related to the right to speedy disposition of cases or speedy trial. The right to speedy trial applies only to criminal prosecutions before courts of law, while the right to speedy disposition of cases applies to any tribunal, judicial or quasi-judicial. Notably, the period for fact-finding investigations before filing formal complaints is not counted in determining delays. As such, investigations preceding the filing of formal complaints are not counted in determining delay. Analysis of delay duration is not rigidly mechanical and must consider circumstances.

In the case at hand, the Ombudsman exceeded the time for preliminary investigation, warranting justification for the delay. However, the Ombudsman failed to provide sufficient explanation, merely arguing that any delay was reasonable. While Rene did not initially assert his right, he raised it in due time before the Sandiganbayan's ruling on the amended informations, sufficient to invoke constitutional protection against undue delay.

 

CLICK TO READ FULL TEXT

Quiap y Evangelista v. People, G.R. No. 229183 (Resolution), [February 17, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Quiap y Evangelista v. People

 G.R. No. 229183 (Resolution), [February 17, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V 

Drug cases; Buy-bust Operation; Validity of Search warrant; Chain of Custody

 

The presence of the insulating witnesses is the first requirement to ensure the preservation of the identity and evidentiary value of the seized drugs. RA 9165 Requires three (3) witnesses to be present during the physical inventory and taking of photographs of pieces of evidence seized from a suspect, namely representatives from the DOJ, media, and public elective official - necessary to protect against the possibility of planting, contamination, or loss of the seized drugs. 

 

PO2 Garcia received information from a confidential asset about a person named "Kacho" planning to buy shabu in Sta. Cruz, Laguna. The authorities organized an entrapment operation and intercepted a passenger jeepney carrying Kacho and the asset. During the interception, Kacho attempted to discard a wrapped object, but PO2 Garcia prevented him. Upon inspection, the object contained a sachet of white crystalline substance. Kacho, later identified as petitioner Leonides Quiap, was taken to the police station where the sachet was marked and sent for laboratory examination. The examination confirmed it contained methamphetamine hydrochloride. Leonides challenges the legality of his warrantless arrest and the admissibility of the seized item, citing procedural lapses in handling the evidence. 

 

Whether or not the chain of custody was properly observed. 

NO. The failure to adhere to required procedures has resulted in a significant gap in the chain of custody. The absence of mandated witnesses during the inventory and photographing of the seized item casts doubt on the integrity of the chain of custody. There was no representation from the media or the Department of Justice, and any elected public official. Additionally, the connection between the investigating officer and the forensic chemist was not definitively established, and precautions to prevent tampering were not adequately described. SPO2 Macabajon received the specimen but did not testify on its transfer to the forensic chemist. Due to these shortcomings, Leonides must be acquitted due to the prosecution's failure to establish a continuous chain of custody.

 

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT

Tan y Sia v. People, G.R. No. 232611 (Resolution), [April 26, 2021]

 CASE DIGEST

Tan y Sia v. People

 G.R. No. 232611 (Resolution), [April 26, 2021]

SECOND, LOPEZ, M.V 

Drug cases; Buy-bust Operation; Validity of Search warrant; Chain of Custody

 

In illegal sale of dangerous drugs, the "objective test" requires that the prosecution paint a clear picture of how the initial contact between the buyer and the pusher was made. It is not enough to show that there was an exchange of money and illegal drugs. The details that led to such exchange must be clearly and adequately accounted for. Failing in which will certainly cast a doubt on the veracity of the whole buy-bust operation.

 

Jasper Tan was arrested in a buy-bust operation after police officers conducted surveillance on him and obtained a search warrant for his house. During the operation, police officers observed Jasper conducting a drug transaction at his house, and later searched his room in the presence of Barangay Captain Emerenciana Velasco. Jasper challenges the validity of the search warrant, arguing that it lacked specific descriptions of the premises to be searched. He also claims his right to personally witness the search was violated as he was already arrested and his movement restricted when the search was conducted. Additionally, he claims that the prosecution failed to comply with the chain of custody rule. 

 

Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish the buy-bust operation through the "objective test."

NO. The prosecution failed to establish the buy-bust operation through the "objective test." This test requires specific details of the transaction to be clearly presented, including the initial contact between the poseur-buyer and the seller, the offer, payment, and delivery of the illegal drug. However, the prosecution did not adequately establish these elements. There is no clear indication of the initial contact, offer, or agreement on the purchase price. Additionally, there is a lack of direct observation of the drug sale by the police officer involved. Moreover, crucial witnesses, such as the poseur-buyer, were not presented to provide firsthand accounts of the transaction. As a result, Jasper's guilt regarding the illegal sale of drugs becomes doubtful based on these inconsistencies and gaps in the prosecution's case.

 

Whether or not the prosecution was able to establish an unbroken chain of custody.

NO. The prosecution failed to establish an unbroken chain of custody. There are critical gaps in the chain of custody process, including uncertainties regarding how the item subject to the buy-bust operation was transferred to the police officers and what happened to the item while in the poseur-buyer's possession. Furthermore, there is no clear testimony regarding the marking of the seized items or their identification in court. These lapses raise doubts about the identity and integrity of the evidence recovered from Jasper. As a result, the evidence loses its evidentiary value due to the violation of mandatory legal requirements.

 

Whether or not the search conducted after Jasper's arrest was proper.

NO.  The search conducted was improper. The search warrant authorized the search of Jasper's room inside a house where he resides, but the transaction occurred at the gate of the same house. During the search, Jasper wasn't brought to his room to observe the search, as required by law. According to Section 8 Rule 126 of the Rules of Court, the search of a house or room should be conducted in the presence of the lawful occupant or witnesses. The absence of such presence renders the search unreasonable, and any evidence obtained becomes inadmissible. Since the confiscated shabu is the main evidence, its exclusion leads to the conclusion that there's insufficient evidence to convict Jasper, warranting his acquittal on both charges.

CLICK HERE TO READ FULL TEXT