G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-04-1539; April 14, 2004
ELENA R. ALCARAZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO S. LINDO, Metropolitan Trial Court of Malabon, Branch 55, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Elena Alcaraz was a defendant in a civil case for sum of money before the court of respondent Judge Francisco S. Lindo. The plaintiff filed an Omnibus Motion to declare the defendants in default for failure to file their answers. Respondent judge issued an Order dated June 5, 1998, declaring the Alcaraz spouses and other defendants in default. Subsequently, a judgment by default was rendered against them. Complainant later filed a Motion for Annulment of Decision, which was denied.
In her administrative complaint, Alcaraz alleged that she was not furnished a copy of the Order declaring her in default or of subsequent orders and pleadings, depriving her of notice. She also challenged the merits of the default judgment and the denial of her motion for annulment. In his Comment, respondent judge defended the substantive correctness of his rulings but did not specifically deny the allegation of non-service of the critical orders, including the order of default.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Francisco S. Lindo is administratively liable for failure to furnish the complainant with copies of the order of default and subsequent orders, in violation of procedural rules and the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found that respondent violated Rule 9, Section 3(a) of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which mandates that a party declared in default is still entitled to notice of subsequent proceedings. Complainant’s detailed assertion of non-receipt of the order of default and subsequent orders was not substantively controverted by respondent judge in his comment. His silence on this specific material allegation, despite having the opportunity to deny it, is construed as an admission. This failure to comply with a basic procedural rule constitutes a violation of Rule 3.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires a judge to be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence.
The Court clarified that the correctness of the default judgment and the order denying the motion for annulment, being judicial in nature, should have been challenged through an appeal, not an administrative complaint. However, the procedural lapse in ensuring proper notice is a separate administrative matter. For this infraction, which undermines the fundamental right to due process, respondent Judge Francisco S. Lindo was fined Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.