Lawyerly

You're currently signed in as:
User

TEODOSIA NATIVIDAD v. MARCELIANO NADAL

This case has been cited 3 times or more.

	O.C. AM No. 00-02 2003-11-19	ALBERTO V. GARONG v. COURT ADMINISTRATOR ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO TINGA, J.
The charges against respondents stem from a criminal case (People v. Garong, et al., Crim. Case No. C-3406) against herein complainant Garong. On March 3, 1993, Judge Marciano T. Virola of Branch 39 of the Calapan City RTC rendered judgment,[5] finding Garong guilty of Frustrated Homicide committed against his neighbor, Gerson Morta. Garong filed an appeal, docketed as CA- G.R. CR No. 14852, with the Court of Appeals.
	O.C. AM No. 00-02 2003-11-19	ALBERTO V. GARONG v. COURT ADMINISTRATOR ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO TINGA, J.
On August 26, 1999, the 14th Division of the Court of Appeals, per Justice Rasul, issued a Resolution[49] in CA-G.R. CR No. 14852 lifting the Entry of Judgment and ordering the Calapan City RTC to recall the Order of Execution and the Warrant of Arrest. The Court of Appeals held that appellant Garong was not properly served with the notice of judgment, and that the entry of judgment was premature and, therefore, void. The Solicitor General agreed with appellant's arguments. As it turned out:.... The Notice of Judgment [of the Decision of the Court of Appeals affirming Garong's conviction] dated August 12, 1996 and a copy of the aforesaid decision [were] sent to appellant's former counsel by means of registered mail but it was returned unserved. Though appellant's former counsel notified the Court of a change of address, the notice of judgment as well as the copy of the decision [were] still forwarded to the counsel's old address. On October 30, 1996[,] a copy of said decision was sent to appellant's office at Calapan, Oriental Mindoro. It was not received by the appellant[,] who was at that time on official leave in Manila from October 30, 1996 up to November 8, 1996 (Annexes "E" and "F"). Appellant was thereafter informed by long distance from Calapan, Mindoro to Manila. This prompted appellant to verify the status of the case from [the Court of Appeals]. It was only this time that he learned of the decision... on November 7, 1996. On November 21, 1996, appellant filed his motion for reconsideration of the decision of this Court, affirming his conviction. But his motion for reconsideration filed on November 21, 1996 was received by the Court of Appeals on December 5,1996 and forwarded to the Receiving Section on December 13, 1996.
	O.C. AM No. 00-02 2003-11-19	ALBERTO V. GARONG v. COURT ADMINISTRATOR ALFREDO L. BENIPAYO TINGA, J.
Much less was there any malice or arbitrariness on the part of respondent Court Administrator in ordering the withholding of Garong's salary. He clarifies that when he instructed the withholding of complainant's salary, he was acting on the belief that complainant had been duly "convicted by final judgment, that he had not been reporting to work, and that a warrant of arrest had been issued against him."[82] At that time, the Court of Appeals had not yet voided the entry of judgment in CA-G.R. CR No. 14852.[83] He correctly points out that, in view of these circumstances, "it would be highly irregular not to stop paying complainant Garong salary from public funds."[84] As regards the dropping of complainant from the rolls, respondent Court Administrator had referred the matter to Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida Elepaño, who made that recommendation to the Court.