AM SCc 23 002 J; (November, 2023) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. SCC-23-002-J (Formerly OCA IPI No. 20-44-SCC-J), November 14, 2023
LITA G. ONG-THOMAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. MONTANO K. KALIMPO, PRESIDING JUDGE (NOW RETIRED), SHARI’AH CIRCUIT COURT, COTABATO CITY, SULTAN KUDARAT, MAGUINDANAO, AND MOHAMMAD A. ABDULRAHMAN, CLERK OF COURT II, SAME COURT, RESPONDENTS.
FACTS
Complainant Lita Ong-Thomas filed an administrative complaint against Judge Montano Kalimpo and Clerk of Court Mohammad Abdulrahman of the Shari’ah Circuit Court for gross ignorance of the law and conduct prejudicial to justice. The case stemmed from SHCC Civil Case No. 2013-879, a petition for confirmation of a talaq (divorce) filed by her husband, Howard Edward Thomas, who claimed conversion to Islam. Ong-Thomas alleged glaring irregularities: her husband’s Notice of Talaq was signed in September 2013, predating the registration of his Certificate of Conversion in October 2013; she received summons on November 25, 2013, yet Judge Kalimpo had already granted the divorce petition on November 19, 2013; and the court order referenced a different certificate of conversion with an earlier date and registry number. Judge Kalimpo later set aside his initial order but, years later, reinstated it while denying Ong-Thomas’s motion to dismiss. She also accused Abdulrahman of inaction concerning her Notice of Appeal from the reinstated order.
ISSUE
Whether respondents Judge Montano Kalimpo and Clerk of Court Mohammad Abdulrahman are administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law, gross negligence, and conduct prejudicial to the administration of justice.
RULING
Yes, but with modified penalties. The Court found Judge Kalimpo guilty of gross ignorance of the law and procedure. His initial order granting the divorce petition was issued with undue haste, merely 20 days after filing and before the complainant could file an opposition, violating her right to due process. Furthermore, his reinstatement of that order years later was based on an erroneous finding that Ong-Thomas failed to file her Answer within the reglementary period, when records showed she had complied. This demonstrated a patent disregard for established rules. However, as Judge Kalimpo had mandatorily retired, the Court could no longer impose a fine and instead deemed the forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, as an appropriate alternative penalty.
As for Clerk of Court Abdulrahman, the Court found him liable for simple neglect of duty. His failure to act promptly on the Notice of Appeal for five months, necessitating a follow-up inquiry from the complainant’s counsel, constituted a neglect of his ministerial duty to facilitate the transmission of records to the appellate court. This delay, while not amounting to gross negligence, impaired the efficient administration of justice. He was fined P5,000.00. The Court emphasized that all court personnel must perform their duties with diligence and promptness to uphold public confidence in the judiciary. The charges of conspiracy were not substantiated by clear and convincing evidence.