A.M. No. MTJ-01-1365 - CESINA EBALLA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ESTRELLITA M.

Ruling

Accordingly, complainant should have filed her motion for reinvestigation with the court rather than with the city prosecutor's office. [6] Judge Paas cannot be faulted for proceeding with complainant's arraignment. Second. Complainant cannot claim violation of her right to have counsel of her own choice. Her counsel failed to appear despite due notice to her, and, therefore, respondent Judge was justified in appointing a counsel de oficio to assist her during her arraignment. Third. Nor can Judge Paas be administratively held liable for citing complainant in contempt and ordering her detention. Complainant refused to sign the certificate of arraignment and declared her refusal to do so in a loud voice while at the same time making faces, to the great embarrasment of the court. At any rate, if she thought she had been cited in contempt without cause, her remedy was to file a petition for certiorari in accordance with Rule 71, §2 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure, which provides: Remedy therefrom. -- The person adjudged in direct contempt by any court may not appeal therefrom, but may avail himself of the remedies of certiorari or prohibition. The execution of the judgment shall be suspended pending resolution of the petition, provided such person files a bond fixed by the court which rendered the judgment and conditioned that he will abide by and perform the judgment should the petition be decided against him. Fourth. Nor is there any basis for sustaining complainant's allegations of discourtesy against respondents Doctolero and Depalobos. Complainant presented no evidence to support her allegations. On the other hand, Doctolero and Depalobos attached affidavits corroborating their respective defenses. Moreover, complainant did not deny Depalobos' claim that the latter had to read the informations aloud because complainant said she was hard of hearing. Fifth. With respect to complainant's claim that Judge Paas failed to issue the necessary orders disposing of her motions for reduction of bail and for the re-raffle of the case, it was shown that the motion for re-raffle was denied in an order dated July 16, 1999 and complainant received a copy of the order on August 4, 1999. However, the record shows that Judge Paas did not actually issue a formal order disposing of the motion for reduction of bail, but only noted her action denying the motion on the margin thereof. Respondent judge's order should at least have been quoted in a notice signed by the clerk of court and a copy of the notice should have been served on complainant. As it is, complainant learned of the denial of her motion when she went to the court to inquire about the status of her cases. The practice of some lower court judges of merely noting their orders either granting or denying motions on the margin of the motions is inconsistent with the purpose of R.A. No. 6031, effective August 4, 1969, to make inferior courts also courts of record. The proceeding of said courts should now