Groundless

An administrative complaint should not be allowed as a vehicle for the review of the decisions of the trial court and the Court of Appeals which have long become final and executory. This is what Willy tried to do in this case.

Willy was the president of a sawmill company (GFSC) which was the defendant-intervenor in an action for recovery of two barges pending in the Regional Trial Court (RTC). The case was set for pre-trial on October 15, 1991. GFSC apparently failed to appear at the pre-trial so it was declared in default. On November 7, 1991, the RTC rendered its decision. On November 15, a representative of GFSC’s lawyer came to the court and was furnished a copy of the decision as well as the order of default.

On November 18, 1991 GFSC filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of default on the ground that its absence during the pre-trial conference is excusable negligence if not an accident. Before its resolution, GFSC filed a Petition for Certiorari with the Court of Appeals (CA) which issued a temporary restraining order. Eventually however the CA dismissed the petition and ordered the RTC to resolve GFSC’s motion for reconsideration.

After the RTC denied the motion for reconsideration, GFSC filed another Petition for Certiorari with the CA to annul the October 15, 1991 order of default, the order denying the motion for reconsideration and the decision of November 7, 1991.

On January 22, 1993, the CA however also dismissed the second petition for certiorari and sustained the RTC’s findings that GFSC and its counsel were duly notified of the pre-trial.

On January 29, 1993, Willy filed an administrative complaint against the branch clerk of court of the RTC for willful omission of the performance of official duty because he did not send copies of the notices of pre-trial to GFSC and its counsel by reason of which GFSC was declared in default. Willy also claimed that the branch clerk did not send the copy of the order of default to GFSC, that is why evidence ex-parte was received from plaintiff and decision was rendered on November 7, 1991. Again Willy claimed that the clerk did not send a copy of the decision but only obtained it when he went to court. Such omission according to Willy prevented GFSC from presenting strong evidence of ownership of the barges and deprived it of ownership without due process. Will Willy’s complaint prosper?

No. Willy does not claim that the CA decision denying GFSC’s petition for certiorari did not attain finality. Nor does he claim that at any time during the pendency of said petition or after the CA promulgated its decision, GFSC had appealed the RTC decision of November 7, 1991. It is thus assumed that the aforesaid decision of the CA and the RTC had long become final. So the correctness of the CA conclusion that GFSC and its counsel were notified of the pre-trial can no longer be reviewed and this administrative complaint by Willy who is not a party to the said Civil Case but merely president of the intervenor GFSC should not be allowed as a vehicle for such review. Apparently, Willy’s complaint was filed to save face for such a grave error of failing to appeal the judgment by default, if not to harass the branch clerk of court.

Lawyers, as officers of the court, should not encourage groundless administrative cases against court officers and employees. The time of the latter should not be wasted in answering or defending groundless complaints. Every minute they have is precious and must be reserved for the enhancement of public service (Ng vs. Alfaro ADM No. P-93-959, December 1, 1994, 238, SCRA 486).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

* * *

E-mail at: [email protected]