A.M. No. RTJ-05-1942 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 04-1936-RTJ) - RESTITUTO L. OPIS, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RODOLFO B. DIMAANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BOAC, MARINDUQUE, BRANCH 94.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly issued such an Order dated February 3, 2004. The respondent claimed that the complainant's charge of habitual absenteeism is a bare allegation, designed to malign his name and reputation and derail his judicial career, being aware that he had a pending application for promotion. He added that the complainant even went to the extent of cajoling court personnel to issue a certification that he does not hold hearings on Mondays and Fridays to create a picture of blatant abuse of office. In his Rejoinder dated May 4, 2004, the complainant claimed that since Marinduque has two branches, namely Branch 38 and Branch 94, the respondent Judge, the presiding judge of the latter court, violated the rule on raffling of cases when he unilaterally assumed control over Civil Case No. 00-5. The complainant also claimed that the respondent Judge misrepresented that the petitioner in the said civil case was the party entitled to the said franchise, asserting that the regional trial courts have no jurisdiction to declare a law unconstitutional. In its Report dated February 3, 2005, the OCA recommended that the instant administrative complaint be dismissed for lack of merit. In a Resolution [3] dated March 16, 2005, the Court resolved to refer the instant administrative matter to Court of Appeals Associate Justice Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando for investigation, report and recommendation. During the hearing of April 25, 2005, the complainant failed to appear; his counsel, Atty. Antonio R. Malasig, manifested that his client was still recuperating from an operation, and that he recently suffered a mild stroke. The complainant was, thus, submitting the case for resolution based on the pleadings submitted. The parties, thereafter, agreed to submit their respective memoranda, attaching thereto their documentary evidence, after which the case would be submitted for resolution. In her Final Report and Recommendation dated June 6, 2005, the Investigating Justice made the following findings: Respondent's culpability hinges on the propriety of his actuations in granting the prayer for the issuance of a temporary restraining order in Civil Case No. 00-5 and in issuing inhibition orders in thirty-one (31) other cases being handled by the complainant before Branches 38 and 94 of the RTC, Marinduque. Likewise, respondent is charged [with] habitual absenteeism for being regularly absent from his sala during Mondays and Fridays. ... The undersigned finds no evidence of fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith on the part of the respondent in issuing the assailed TRO in Civil Case No. 00-5, nor is there anything which indicates that the issuance thereof was attended with arbitrariness or deliberate intent to do an injustice. The procedure prescribed by law and the Rules was accordingly observed and followed by the respondent. The requisite notice and summary hearing on the TRO, which, as can be culled from the records, which were more than summary, were accorded the pa