A.M. No. 1214 - DECEMBER 1977 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.M. No. 1214December 1, 1977 Crisostomo P. Olivarez vs. Francisco R. Llamas B.M. SBC – 591December 1, 1977 In Re: Oscar R. Quilala G.R. No. L-32716December 1, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Antonio T. Ventura G.R. No. L-42483December 2, 1977 Leonor S. Mulingtapang vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-27437December 6, 1977 Felix C. Dungca vs. Macario Peralta, Jr. G.R. No. L-47245December 9, 1977 Gualberto J. Dela Llana vs. the Commission on Elections G.R. No. L-47329December 9, 1977 Ernesto C. Hidalgo vs. Hon. Ferdinand Marcos Y Edralin G.R. No. L-28021December 15, 1977 Julian Santulan vs. Exec. Sec. of D.A.N.R. A.M. No. 1487December 20, 1977 Maria H. Perol vs. Arsenio Lupisan, Jr. G.R. No. L-36435December 20, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Rolando C. Peña G.R. No. L-35022December 21, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Verzola , et al. G.R. No. L-43705December 21, 1977 Leoncia Magat vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission G.R. No. L-22747December 29, 1977 Alfredo Gimeno vs. the Hon. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-26809December 29, 1977 Aetna Casualty & Surety Company vs. Pacific Star Line G.R. No. L-32670December 29, 1977 Arsenio Gerardino, Sr. vs. Court of First Instance (Br. III), Capiz G.R. No. L-33762December 29, 1977 Potenciana Duque, et al. vs. Paz Domingo, et al. G.R. No. L-36082December 29, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Enrique Eguac G.R. No. L-39229December 29, 1977 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Gloria G.R. No. L-41955December 29, 1977 Elisco-Elirol Labor Union (Naflu) vs. Carmelo Noriel G.R. No. L-44251December 29, 1977 Felix Montemayor vs. Secretary of Labor G.R. No. L-46205December 29, 1977 Margarita Caco vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-46476December 29, 1977 Daniel Cabunilas vs. Court of Appeals G.R. No. L-47070December 29, 1977 Pedro Trajano vs. Fernando A. Cruz The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Crisostomo P. Olivarez vs. Francisco R. Llamas In Re: Oscar R. Quilala People of the Philippines vs. Antonio T. Ventura Leonor S. Mulingtapang vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Felix C. Dungca vs. Macario Peralta, Jr. Gualberto J. Dela Llana vs. the Commission on Elections Ernesto C. Hidalgo vs. Hon. Ferdinand Marcos Y Edralin Julian Santulan vs. Exec. Sec. of D.A.N.R. Maria H. Perol vs. Arsenio Lupisan, Jr. People of the Philippines vs. Rolando C. Peña People of the Philippines vs. Ricardo Verzola , et al. Leoncia Magat vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission Alfredo Gimeno vs. the Hon. Court of Appeals Aetna Casualty & Surety Company vs. Pacific Star Line Arsenio Gerardino, Sr. vs. Court of First Instance (Br. III), Capiz Potenciana Duque, et al. vs. Paz Domingo, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Enrique Eguac People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Gloria Elisco-Elirol Labor Union (Naflu) vs. Carmelo Noriel Felix Montemayor vs. Secretary of Labor Margarita Caco vs. Court of Appeals Daniel Cabunilas vs. Court of Appeals Pedro Trajano vs. Fernando A. Cruz The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

In a verified letter-complaint dated March 4, 1976, (Rollo, pp. 12), Crisostomo P. Olivarez denounced City Judge Francisco Llamas of the City Court of Pasay City for intervening in a case which otherwise could have been settled amicably.

Complainant was allegedly deprived 'of his share in the estate of his deceased father, Miguel Olivarez' by his sister Urbana Olivarez Leonardo and brothers-in-law Jesus Leonardo and Mauro Ongaco (Vide: Rollo p. 3). Complainant asked the help of the OCR Camp Crame'. Said Office set December 8, 1975 for a confrontation between the parties. Complainant's sister and brothers-in-law failed to appear although they sent a letter addressed to Col. Felipe Sta. Agueda OCR Chief, Philippine Constabulary, Camp Crame, Quezon City, requesting for a copy of the complaint against respondent's cousins 'Mr. and Mrs. Jesus Leonardo' and 'a postponement of such confrontation ... pending clarification of the nature of such case (Rollo p. 4).

Respondent's letter was answered by Col. Sta. Agueda statinginter aliathat his Office 'assists complainants who appear to have valid grievances and tries to effect amicable settlement whenever possible in order to avoid deterioration of disputes into court cases; and consequently, avoid expensive court litigations. However, if Mr. and Mrs. Jesus Leonardo are not disposed to come to the OCR (Office of Civil Relations), and since the record so far shows no imputation of a criminal offense, they may so state in writing (Rollo, p. 5).

Complainant alleged that when nothing happened in the OCR at Camp Crame, he sought the help of the Department of National Defense which Office set his case for confrontation three (3) times; that on the last date of confrontation, respondent appeared and told Atty. Lial of the Department of National Defense that a civilian court, not a military court, has jurisdiction over the cue; and that the warrant officer of the Department of National Defense told said Atty. Lial that complainant's sister and brothers-in-law wanted to appear for the confrontation but respondent prevailed upon them not to appear.

To further show respondent's intervention, complainant submitted a copy of a 'Deed of DonationInter Vivosand Grant of Right of Way' wherein respondent was one of the witnesses complainant's Annex D).

In his letter-comment to the Executive Officer of this Court dated August 20, 1976 (received by this Court's Records Control Center on September 6, 1976, Rollo, pp. 15-18), respondent stated inter alia that 'all their problems are being referred to me, not in the sense of a lawyer-client relationship but on account of my being their relative with a legal background'; that, as such, he signed as witness in a deed of donation (Complainant's Annex D); that Atty. Lazaro C. Ison was hired by his cousins as their counsel; that Col. Sta. Agueda was his classmate in law 'and a close 'kababayan' and associate in the Bar Association of Paranaque, Rizal' and for which reasons his cousins asked him to write said Col. Sta Agueda on December 8, 1975 'On account of their nervous breakdown as a result of the invitation and their fear of being detained by the military.

As to complainant's gripe over his share of a certain property, respondent averred:

Complainant was furnished a copy of respondent's explanation/comment. There is no showing that complainant filed a reply.

From the foregoing, it appears that complainant's remedy for having been allegedly deprived of his share in the estate of his deceased father is purely civil in nature, and respondent's explanation on the alleged 'intervention' appears satisfactory. On these grounds, the instant complaint may be dismissed outright for lack of merit.

However, respondent's delay in the filing of his comment may be taken cognizance of.ℒαwρhi৷

In a lst Indorsement dated March 9, 1976, of the Executive Officer (Office of the Court Administrator), respondent was made to comment 'within ten (10) days from receipt hereof' This was followed by a 'first tracer', then a second tracer' dated May 6, 1976 and July 2, 1976, respectively (Rollo, pp. 8, 9 and 10).

This Court's Second Division had to pass a resolution dated September 3, 1976, requiring respondent to comply with the directive of the Executive Officer.

It was only on September 6, 1976 when this Court's Records Control Center received respondent's comment dated August 20, 1976.

In a resolution dated February 7, 1977 (Second Division, Adm. Matter No. 759-CTJ Celso Prospero, et al. vs. Hon. Francisco Llamas of Pasay City) respondent was 'admonished to exercise due diligence in complying with the directives coming from this Court (and, for that matter, in the performance of his duties). He is warned that a repetition of a similar negligent act will be dealt with more severely'.

Premises considered, it is respectfully recommended that the instant complaint against City Judge Francisco Llamas, City Court of Pasay City ' be dismissed for lack of merit. However, for respondent's failure to exercise due diligence in complying with directives coming from this Court, respondent may be reprimanded.