G.R. No. RTJ-06-2030 & RTJ-07-2032. October 5, 2007.
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Augustine A. Vestil and Judge Jesus S. Dela Peña.

FACTS

The administrative complaints stemmed from the handling of a petition for declaration of nullity of marriage (Civil Case No. MAN-3855). The case was raffled to Branch 56, RTC Mandaue City, presided by Judge Vestil, but was heard by Assisting Judge Dela Peña. The Court of Appeals later annulled Judge Dela Peña’s decision, finding fatal irregularities that deprived the respondent husband of due process. The CA noted the absence of notices for hearings, missing transcripts, and the rendering of a decision on the same day a hearing was purportedly held, all without affording the respondent a chance to present evidence.
Following the remand, the petitioner-wife filed a motion to dismiss her own petition. Judge Vestil, then acting on the case, issued an order granting the motion, stating that the respondent husband failed to file a comment. The Office of the Court Administrator found that Judge Vestil’s order incorrectly stated that the respondent had been served a copy of the motion, when records showed service occurred after the order setting the hearing was issued.

ISSUE

Whether Judges Dela Peña and Vestil are administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and/or procedure and for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct in their handling of the nullity case.

RULING

Yes, both judges are administratively liable. The Supreme Court found Judge Dela Peña guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure. His conduct of the trial exhibited a blatant disregard for fundamental due process. He proceeded with ex-parte hearings without proper notices, allowed a public prosecutor to cross-examine the petitioner in lieu of the respondent’s counsel, and rendered a decision based on an incomplete and irregular record. These actions constituted a patent violation of procedural rules and the constitutional right to be heard.
Judge Vestil was found guilty of simple misconduct. In granting the motion to dismiss, he failed to adhere to the proper procedure under the Rules of Court, which requires court approval for a dismissal after an answer is filed. More importantly, he made an incorrect factual finding in his order regarding service of the motion, demonstrating carelessness and a lack of diligence in verifying the records before issuing a ruling. This failure to exercise due care in the performance of official duties breached the standard of competence required of judges. The Court imposed a fine of P40,000.00 for Judge Dela Peña and P20,000.00 for Judge Vestil, with a stern warning.