AM 09 3210 RTJ; (June, 2012) (Digest)
A.M. OCA IPI No. 09-3210-RTJ; June 20, 2012
Juvy P. Ciocon-Reer, Angelina P. Ciocon, Marivit P. Ciocon-Hernandez, and Remberto C. Karaan, Sr., Complainants, vs. Judge Antonio C. Lubao, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, General Santos City, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants, plaintiffs in an appealed unlawful detainer case, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Antonio C. Lubao for gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, and dishonesty, among other charges. They alleged that after the judge issued an order on September 12, 2008, directing the submission of memoranda, the defendants failed to file theirs by the presumed deadline of November 6, 2008. They contended the judge should have deemed this a waiver and decided the case promptly, but he failed to do so for four months. In his comment, Judge Lubao explained that the court never received the registry return card proving the defendants’ receipt of the order. To ensure due process, he issued a subsequent order in May 2009 giving the defendants a final chance to submit their memorandum. He also informed the Court that complainant Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. was engaging in the unauthorized practice of law.
ISSUE
The primary issue is whether Judge Lubao is administratively liable for the alleged delay in resolving the case. A corollary issue is whether Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. is liable for indirect contempt for unauthorized practice of law.
RULING
The Supreme Court denied the motion for reconsideration and affirmed the dismissal of the administrative complaint against Judge Lubao. It found no merit in the charges. The Court ruled that the matters raised by complainants—specifically, the judge’s handling of procedural timelines and his discretionary act of extending the period for filing memoranda to ensure all parties were heard—were judicial in nature. Errors committed in the exercise of judicial discretion, absent proof of fraud, dishonesty, or bad faith, are not correctable through an administrative proceeding but through appropriate judicial remedies like an appeal. The judge’s actions were aimed at upholding due process, a fundamental constitutional right, and did not constitute gross ignorance of the law or inefficiency.
However, the Court found Remberto C. Karaan, Sr. guilty of indirect contempt under Section 3(e), Rule 71 of the Rules of Court for unauthorized practice of law. The Office of the Court Administrator verified that Karaan, who is not a lawyer, had filed numerous pleadings and represented parties in various cases, effectively acting as an attorney. His defense that he provided free paralegal services for public good was rejected, as such activities constituted practice of law reserved for duly licensed attorneys. Considering his advanced age, the Court modified the recommended penalty and imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000). All courts were directed to be informed of this ruling and to report any further appearances by Karaan.