A.M. No. RTJ-04-1838. March 18, 2004. EUSEBIO OSORIO, complainant, vs. JUDGE AGUSTIN S. DIZON and Branch Clerk of Court ATTY. REZA M. CASILA-DERAYUNAN, Regional Trial Court (Branch 80), Quezon City, respondents.
FACTS

Complainant Eusebio Osorio was a plaintiff in a civil case where the trial court rendered an adverse decision. A notice of appeal was filed by counsel, and respondent Judge Agustin S. Dizon gave due course to the appeal on September 25, 2002, ordering the transmittal of records to the Court of Appeals. However, the records were not transmitted. On May 23, 2003, a co-plaintiff filed an Urgent Motion to Discharge Counsel and to Withdraw Notice of Appeal, which Judge Dizon granted on June 4, 2003. The co-plaintiff later filed a motion to withdraw his earlier motion. The defendants opposed this subsequent motion, prompting Judge Dizon to set it for hearing and set aside his June 4 Order. The records were finally transmitted to the appellate court on November 13, 2003.
Osorio charged Judge Dizon and Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Reza M. Casila-Derayunan with grave misconduct and oppression. He alleged the delay in transmitting the records violated the 30-day period rule, and that Judge Dizon acted with bias by granting the motion to withdraw appeal without hearing and by setting the subsequent motion for hearing, allegedly to favor the defendants. Respondents cited heavy workload due to the court’s designation as a special drug court to justify the delay.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Agustin S. Dizon and Atty. Reza M. Casila-Derayunan are administratively liable for the delay in transmitting the records of the appealed case and for the alleged biased actions of the judge.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Atty. Casila-Derayunan administratively liable but only admonished Judge Dizon. For the Branch Clerk of Court, the Court ruled that the duty to transmit records within 30 days is mandatory. Her excuses of heavy workload and administrative duties were insufficient to justify the nearly one-year delay, constituting neglect of duty. She was fined ₱1,000.00.
For Judge Dizon, the Court found no evidence of bad faith, malice, or corrupt motive. While he failed to exercise due care in promptly resolving the post-appeal incidents, which contributed to the delay, such error was not gross, deliberate, or malicious. The presumption that judicial acts are performed in good faith stands absent contrary proof. His act of setting the subsequent motion for hearing was proper, as it involved evidentiary matters and potential prejudice to the defendants’ rights, warranting an opportunity for both parties to be heard. Complainant’s mere suspicion of bias was insufficient for disciplinary action. Judge Dizon was admonished for failing to exercise the required degree of care in his judicial functions.