A.M. No. RTJ-00-1542; March 16, 2000
ROLANDO M. ODOÑO, complainant, vs. JUDGE PORFIRIO G. MACARAEG and ATTY. EVA C. PORTUGAL-ATIENZA, respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Rolando M. Odoño, the defendant in Civil Case No. 97-1595, charged Judge Porfirio G. Macaraeg with Ignorance of the Law and Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Eva C. Portugal-Atienza with Dereliction of Duty and Negligence. The complaint stemmed from an Order dated May 22, 1998, which declared Odoño in default and allowed ex-parte presentation of evidence. Odoño alleged that he filed an Answer on May 13, 1998, yet the default order was issued. He further noted that a copy of this order was mailed to his counsel on May 19, 1998—three days before its indicated date—leading him to conclude it was pre-prepared before the scheduled hearing.
Respondent Judge, in his comment, explained he underwent eye surgery on May 8, 1998. In anticipation of his recovery period, he directed the Branch Clerk of Court to provide him with cases due for resolution. Upon reviewing the record, he found that summons had been served on Odoño on January 5, 1998, but no Answer was filed within the reglementary period. Consequently, he dictated and signed the order granting the plaintiff’s Motion to Declare Defendant in Default before his surgery, instructing the Branch Clerk of Court to release it on the date indicated. Respondent Branch Clerk of Court explained that the order was inadvertently mailed early by Branch Sheriff Serafin Salazar, who, seeing accumulated records on an absent clerk’s table, took it upon himself to mail documents he assumed were due for release.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Porfirio G. Macaraeg and Atty. Eva C. Portugal-Atienza are administratively liable for the premature issuance and mailing of the default order.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court found Judge Macaraeg guilty of Ignorance of the Law. The act of preparing and signing a default order before the scheduled hearing date constitutes a denial of due process. Notice of a motion is intended to afford the adverse party an opportunity to be heard and to oppose the motion. By pre-resolving the motion and issuing the order before its due date, the Judge effectively deprived complainant of this fundamental right to contest the motion, which is a clear violation of procedural due process.
The Court also found Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Eva C. Portugal-Atienza guilty of Negligence and Dereliction of Duty. As the custodian of court records and supervisor of court personnel, she bears responsibility for ensuring an orderly record management system and the proper dispatch of court processes. Her failure to establish adequate controls and to properly supervise her staff, particularly in light of the known absence of a clerk, led to the inadvertent early mailing of the order by the Branch Sheriff. This lack of circumspection in managing court documents and personnel constitutes negligence in the performance of her administrative duties. Both respondents were REPRIMANDED with a stern warning.