~epubhc of tl)e flbtltpp111es

~upretne <!Court
:fflm1ila

EN BANC

'
DR. JULIAN L. ESPIRITU, JR., A ..M. No. RTJ-21-014
represented by RUBENITO R. [Formerly OCA I Pl No. I 9-4956-
DEL CASTILLO, RTJ]
Complainant,

Present:
- versus -
GESMUNDO, CJ,
PRESIDING JUDGE LEONEN,
SANTIAGO M. ARENAS, CAGUIOA,
Regional Trial Court of Quezon HERNANDO,
City, Branc_h 217, LAZARO-JAVIER,
Respondent. INTING,
ZALAMEDA,*
LOPEZ, M. ,
GAERLAN,
ROSARIO,
LOPEZ, J.,
DIMAAMPAO,*
MARQUEZ,**
KHO, JR., and
SINGH,JJ

Promulgated:
December 5, 2023

x----------------- ------------------------------------ ~ ~ ~ ~ -----x

DECISION
"---- -
KHO, JR., J.:

• On official leave.
•· No part and on official business.

;
/Jl
 Decision 2 A.M. No. RTJ-21~014
[Formerly OCA !PI No. 19-4956-RTJ]

This administrative matter arose from a Complaint I filed by

complainant Dr. Julian L. Espiritu, Jr., represented by Rubenito R. Del
Castillo (complainant) charging respondent Presiding Judge Santiago M.
<Arenas (Judge Arenas) of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch
217 (RTC) of Gross Ignorance of the Law and Gross Inefficiency, in
connection with Civil Case No. Q-00-41263 entitled "Julian Espiritu, Jr.,
represented by his Attorney-in:fact_Angelito L. Espiritu v. Lily Ann Espiritu-
Misa and Jose Mari Misa" (subject case)._

The Facts

Complainant alleged that he is the plaintiff in the subject case which

was raffled to Judge Arenas' sala. After due proceedings, Judge Arenas
promulgated a Decision 2 dated July 13, 2010 in complainant's favor, and
accordingly ordered, inter alia, the award of 5/ 6 of the property under litigation
to the latter. The subject case was then appealed to the Court of Appeals
(CA), 3 and later on to the Court, wherein Judge Arenas' aforesaid Decision
was essentially affirmed. After such ruling attained finality, 4 the case records
were remanded to the RTC for execution proceedings.

According to complainant, he filed a Motion for Execution 5 as early as

July 9, 2015 but the same was only resolved by Judge Arenas almost three
years later through an Order6 dated July 6, 2018. In this light, complainant
contended that such delay constitutes undue delay in the resolution of the
motion for execution for which Judge Arenas must be administratively
sanctioned. 7

Complainant further pointed out that despite the finality of the subject
case, Judge Arenas still entertained various motions and pleadings filed by
therein defendants and set them for hearing, and even allowed complainant
and therein defendants' mother to testify. Thus, complainant argued that
Judge Arenas' foregoing acts are tantamount to Gross Ignorance of the Law
because in effect, Judge Arenas was reopening the decision in the subject case
which had long become final and executory. 8

Rollo. pp. 2-10.

Id. at 15-21.
Id. at 24--45 and 46-47. See Decision dated October 30, 2012 and Resolution dated July 17, 2014 of the
Court of Appeals, respectively. Penned by Associate Justice Marlene Gonzales-Sison with Associate
Justices Hakim S. Abdulwahid and Edwin D. Sorongon, concurring.
4
Id. at 49 and 48, see Entries of Judgment dated November 25, 2014 and February 3, 2015, respectively.
Signed by Deputy Clerk of Court & Chief of the Judicial Records Office Atty. Corazon D. Delos Reyes.
Id. at 51-56.
G
Id. at 57-85.
7
Id. at 378.
g
Id. at 378-379.
Decision 3 A.M. No. RTJ-21-014
[Formerly OCA !PI No. 19-4956-RTJJ

For his part, Judge Arenas filed a Comment9 essentially praying for the
dismissal of the instant complaint for lack of merit.

Anent the allegation of undue delay, Judge Arenas pointed out that
contrary to the allegations of complainant, the latter's motion for execution
dated July 20, 2015 was resolved through an Order 10 dated August 31, 2016,
and accordingly, the Writ of Execution 11 was issued on August 18, 201 7.
Furthermore, Judge Arenas pointed out a number of material dates showing
that any delay in the execution proceedings was not attributable to him, but
rather, to the various subsequent pleadings and motions submitted by the
parties-litigants, as well as resettings of hearings pertaining to said motions.
Moreover, these pleadings and motions gave rise to various incidents which
have yet to be submitted for resolution. In any event, Judge Arenas intimated
that he had constantly cautioned therein defendants not to prolong the
execution proceedings by filing various pleadings a_rid motions as there 1s
already a final and executory decision in the subject case. 12

As regards the charge of gross ignorance of the law, Judge Arenas

maintaine1 that he is cognizant of the rule that once a decision becomes final
and executory, execution shall issue as a matter of right and that the issuance
of the writ of execution is the court's ministerial duty. However, Judge Arenas
pointed out that there are exceptions to this rule. As such, he was constrained
to take into consideration therein defendants' succeeding pleadings and
motions, considering that the same were in connection with complainant's
motion for execution. 13

Meanwhile, during the pendency of this case, Judge Arenas

co111.pulsorily retired from the Judiciary on October 27, 2020. 14

The OCA Report and Recommendation

In a Memorandum 15 dated January 4, 2021. the Office of the Court

Administrator (OCA) recommended, inter alia, that: (a) the charge of
gross ignorance of the law be dismissed for being judicial in nature; and
(b) Judge Arenas be found administratively liable for undue delay in
rendering an order, and accordingly, be fined in the amount of PHP
15,000.00 which shall be deducted from his compulsory retirement
benefits.

9
Id. at 98-128.
i{i !d. at i29-l3 l.
1
' ld. at 132-133.
" rd. at 379-382.
" Id. at 382-383.
"' Id. at 383.
15 fd. at 377-387. Signed by Court J\Jrninbtn:.rn1 .!o~·e Midas P. iVLuoue? (nov. a Member ofthi.'i l\mrt)
and Assistant Court Administrator Lil:c..n C. li?rrit,:il~'::'o.
 •
Decision 4 A.M. No. RTJ-21-014
[Formeriy OCA !PI No. 19-4956-RTJ]

In dismissing the charge of gross ignorance of the law, the OCA

found that Judge Arenas' acts cf entertaining therein defendant's
subsequent pleadings and motions in the subject case, as well as allowing
complainant and therein defendants' mother to testify during execution
proceedings pertain to Judge Arenas' judicial discretion. Hence, any
perceived errors therein should be raised and assailed in appropriate
judicial proceedings and not through the instant administrative
complaint. 16

As regards the charge of undue delay, the OCA found that there is
no cogent reason to hold Judge Arenas liable for the same in connection
with complainant's Motion for Execution dated July 9, 2015, considering
that records show that the same was resolved through the Order dated
August 31, 2016. vVhile it appears that the motion was filed and the order
granting the same was issued in 2016, the OCA pointed out that it is not
clear from the records as to when the motion was submitted for resolution
or when the last pleading was filed. Thus, no administrative liability could
be ascribed on Judge Arenas insofar as this matter is concemed. 17

Nonetheless, the OCA found Judge Arenas guilty of such charge

with regards to therein defendants' Motion to Enjoin the Implementation
of the Writ of Execution which was filed on November 9, 2017. This is
considering that the last pleading relative to this Motion, • i.e., the
Rejoinder, was filed on December 7, 2017, and yet, the incident was only
resolved seven months later through an Order dated July 6, 2018. Thus, the
OCA concluded that the belated resolution of this incident is a violation of
Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the <;:onstitution which mandates lower comt
judges to resolve cases or matter before their sala within three months from
the date of submission for resolution. 18

The Issue Before the Court

The issue for the Court's resolution is whether Judge Arenas should
be held administratively liable for the acts complained of.

The Court's Ruling

The Court adopts the findings of the OCA with certain modifications,
as will be explained below.

"' Id. at 385.

)? Id. at 383-384.
'" Id. at 385-386.
Decision 5 A.M. No. RTJ-21-014
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4956-RTJ]

At the outset, it is important to note that on February 22, 2022, the Court
En Banc unanimously approved A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, entitled "Further
Amendments to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court." On April 3, 2022, the
publication requirement thereof had already been complied with; 19 hence,
Rule 140, as further amended (the Rules), is already effective.

In this relation, Section 24 of the Rules explicitly provides that it will

apply to f"\11 pending and future administrative disciplinary cases involving
Members, officials, employees, and personnel of the Judiciary, to wit:

SECTION 24. Retroactive E,tfect. - All the foregoing provisions

shall be applied to all pending and future administrative cases involving
the discipline of Members. officials, employees, and personnel of the
•Judiciary. without prejudice to the internal rules of the Committee on
Ethics and Ethical Standards of the Supreme Court insofar as complaints
against Members of the Supreme Court are concerned. (Emphasis and
underscoring supplied)

In view of the foregoing, the Court shall resolve this case under the
framework of the Rules.

II.

At this juncture, it bears pointing out that during the pendency of this
case, Judge Arenas compulsorily retired from the Judiciary on October 27,
2020. 20 This, however, will not preclude the Court from determining his
administrative liability, pursuant to Section 2(2) of the Rules which provides
that "once disciplinary proceedings have already been instituted, the
respondent's supervening retirement or separation from service shall not
preclude or affect the continuation of the same ... " In this regard, case lm-v
instructs that "for the Court to acquire jurisdiction over an administrative
proceeding, the complaint must be filed during the incumbency of the
respondent public official or employee. This is because the filing of an
administrative case is predicated on the holding of a position or office in the
govenunent service. However, once jurisdiction has attached, the same is not
lost by the mere fact that the public offi.cial or employee was no longer in
office during the pendency of the case." 21 As such, the Court shall now
proceed with the determination ofJud6 c, Arenas' administrative liability.

?9 Rules ofC.ourt, Rule 140, Sc.:tion 26 ;·:.·-ods:

SECTION 26. I:/fccti~-',ty ( 'luusL:. -~ T!1ese Ruic!; shaii take effect foilowing their
publication in ihe Official Gazette or i!L rwr; newspaper, of national circulation.
(Emphasis and underscoring s1.1µpli-.;;d}
,o Rollo, p. 383. •
21
Ofjice qfthe Court Administrawr v. ;{;'uensc;~hff<-, KW E"hiL 56L 569-570 C2020) [Per J. Delos Santos, .En
Banc]. See also Baquer_fc, v Stmchez, i\95 1:.hi:. !!i t).005) LI'e;- Curwm. En Banc].
 Decision 6 A.M. No. RTJ-21~014
[Fom1erly OCA !PI No. 19-4956-RTJ]

Anent the charge of gross ignorance of the law, suffice it to say that the
OCA correctly recommended the dismissal of the same, considering that
Judge Arenas' acts of entertaining iberein defendant's subsequent pleadings
and motions in the subject case, as ~ell as allowing complainant and therein
defendants' mother to testify during execution proceedings pertain to Judge
Arenas' judicial discretion. Plainly, complainant's recourse being judicial in
nature, it should have filed the proper remedy to assail Judge Arenas' rulings
(e.g., appeal or certiorari) instead of filing the instant administrative
complaint. It is settled that resort to and exhaustion of judicial remedies and a
final ruling on the matter are prerequisites for the taking of appropriate
measures against the judges concerned, whether of criminal, civil or
administrative nature. 22

As regards the charge of undue delay, the OCA correctly pointed out
that Judge Arenas may only be found liable therefor insofar as therein
defendants' Motion to Enjoin the Implementation of the Writ ofExecution
which was filed November 9, 2017 is concerned. Under Article VITI, Section
15(1 ), 23 of the Constitution, Judge Arenas is given only three months to
resolve this incident, with such period being reckoned from the date it is
deemed submitted for resolution. Ip. this regard, it is settled that a matter is
deemed submitted for resolution upon the filing of the last pleading in
connection therewith. 24 However, records clearly show that Judge Arenas was
only able to resolve this incident seven months after lhe same was submitted
for resolution through the Order dated July 6, 2018. Absent any justifiable
reason for the delay, the Court is constrained to agree with the OCA's finding
of administrative liability against Judge Arenas.

At this juncture, it bears pointing out that under the Rules, the
administrative offense of"Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision or Order, or
in Transmitting the Records of the Case" has already been subsumed, either
under "Gross Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-Perf01mance of
Official Functions" under Section 14(d), or "Simple Neglect of Duty in the
Performance or Non-Performance of Official Duties" under Section I 5(b),
depending on the seriousness thereof, pursuant to case law on Gross and
Simple Neglect ofDuty. 25

22
. Re: Verified Complain! ofAA,fA land, inc. against !Jon. Danton Q. Bueser. Hon. Sesinando E. Villon
and Hon. Ricardo R. Rosario, Associatl::! Justices of the Court of Appeals, A.M. OCA lPI No. 12-202-
CA-J, 701 Phil. 462. 468 (2013) [Per.!. Perlas-Bernehe, En Banc]. •
23
CONST., art. VIII, sec. 15(1) reads:

SECTION 15. (_l) All cases or_~c'!ctlers filed after the effectivity of this·
Constitution must be decided or resoive-d_:·.;ithin tv,•enty·-four months from date of
submission for the Supreme CoUit, 011d, 11;1le::t-; reduced by th~ Supreme Court, twelve
months for all lower collegiat~ cowis, JPd thtee months for all other lower courts.
(Emphases and underscoring suppli~d)
14
Ojfice ofthe Court Administrator v.._hu/g(; r~!o,·es, 75g Phil. 30, 62(2015) [Per Curiam, En Banc], citing
China Banking Corporation v. .Judse .Jc.:.'1d~>. ./."' ')77 Phil. 176, 182 (2008) [Per J. Carpio, First
Division]. •
2-" See annotations tc Sections i 4( d) and 15(b) of t!"i;: RZ! !es of Cm1rt.
Decision 7 A.M. No. RTJ-21-014
• [Fonnerly OCA IPI No. 19-4956-RTJ]

In this relation, case law mstructs that "Simple [N]eglect of [D]uty is

defined a~ 'the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of an
employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference.' However, when
an employee's negligence displays want of even the slightest care or
conscious indifference to the consequences or by flagrant and palpable breach
of duty, the omission is regarded as [G]ross [N]eglect of [D]uty. More
precisely, there is [G]ross [N]eglect of [D]uty when a public official or
employee's negligence is characterized by the glaring want of care, or by
acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not
inadvertently, but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to
the·consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected." 26

Given the foregoing jurisprudential definitions of the types of neglect

of duty, and further considering the prevailing circumstances of this case, the
Court finds Judge Arenas administratively liable for simple neglect of duty in
the performance or non-performance of official fi.m.ctions.

III.

Judge Arenas' administrative liability for simple neglect of duty having

been established, the Court now goes to the proper imposable penalty on him.

Under the Rules, simple neglect of duty-now denominated as "simple

neglect of duty in the performance or non-perfonnance of official
functions"-is a less serious charge 27 which is punishable by any of the
following penalties found under Section 17(2) of the Rules, i.e.: (a)
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one
month nor more than six months; or (b) a fine of more than PHP 35,000.00
but not exceeding PHP 100,000.00. 28 Since Judge Arenas had already
compulsorily retired, the penalty of suspension can no longer be imposed on
him. Hence, the Court is constrained to impose on him the penalty of fine.

In determining the proper amount of fine, the Court notes Section 19

(2)(a) of the Rules which state that the Court may, in its discretion, appreciate
the aggravating circumstance of"[flinding of previous administrative liability
where a penalty is imposed, regardless of nature and/or gravity." In this
relation, Section 20 of the Rules instructs that "[i]f one (1) or more
aggravating circumstances and no mitigating circumstances are present, the
Supreme Court may impose the T/Cimlties of suspension o•· fine for a
period or amount not eXC"-'~9'J.lliL.double of the maximum prescribed
under this Rule."

26 Office of the Court Aaininistrator 1.'. .11::y. Tu!;:;do. t:0 PhiL 160. 175 (2020) [Per Curium, En Banc]:
citations omitted.
27 See Rules of Court. Rule 140. Sec. ; 5(.'; ).
w See Rules of Court, Rule 1.40, Sec. ·17(~>

'
.k(,--;
/.h::'.'
 Decision 8 A.M. No. RcTJ-21-,014
[Formerly OCA !PI No. 19-4956-RTJ]

Here, the OCA noted that in A.lVL No. RTJ-12-2313 29 entitled "GMA
Network, Inc. v. Judge Arenas," Judge Arenas was previously found guilty of
gross inefficiency and undue delay, and accordingly was fined in the amount
of PHP 5,000.00. 30 As the Court sees it, this previous :finding of administrative
liability should be considered as an aggravating circumstance under Section
19(2) of the Rules. Consequently, and pursuant to Section 20 of the Rules,
Judge Arenas may be meted the penalty of a fine not exceeding double the
amount of fine as prescribed under Section 17(2), i.e., PHP 35,000.00 to PHP
I 00,000.00--or an amount not exceeding PHP 200,000.00.

Given the circumstances of this case, the Court deems it appropriate to

impose on him the penalty of a fine in the amount of PHP 120,000.00, payable
in accordance with Section 22 of the Rules, which reads:

SECTION 22. Payment of Fines. - When the penalty imposed is a

fine, the respondent shall pay it within a period not exceedjng three (3)
months from the time the decision or resolution is promulgated. lf unpaid,
such amount may be deducted from the salaries and benefits, including
accrued leave credits, due to the respondent. The deduction of unpaid fines
from accrued leave credits, which is considered as a form of compensation,
is not tar1tamount to the imposition of the accessory penalty of forfeiture
covered under the provisions of this Ru!.e.

As a final note, the Court hereby reminds all the members of the
Judiciaiy that "the honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not
only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the
efficiency with which disputes are resolved. 'Thus,judges must perform their
official duties with utmost diligence if public confidence in the judiciary is to
be preserved. There is no excuse for mediocrity in the performance of judicial
functions. The position of judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance
of the law and the Constitution in the discharge of official duties. "'31

ACCORDINGLY, the Court finds respondent 'Presiding Judge

Santiago M. Arenas of the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, Branch 217
GUILTY of simple neglect of duty in the performance or non-performance
of official functions. He is meted the penalty of a FINE in the amount of PHP
120,000.00.

SO ORDERED.

~fo~~o~
Associate Justice

:c:Sr See>; Minute Resolution dated f'.,1arch .5, 70 1 2.

30
See rollo, p. 383.
:q Office of the Court Adrr.inistrotor v ..h•£{>;~ ,-·,,,.:,-.:.:;'.:,; _ 785 Phil. 350, 3)9 (2016) [Per J. Peralta, Third
Division], citing Re: Report on the ..hu..'L.:h<l -4.ciDit ,:;1;nduc1L·d in 1i1t: l?TC - Branch 56, l\.1andaue City,
b58 Phil. 533. 540-541 (20 I I) [Per .l F\a:·al::1, Second Division].
Qecision 9 A.M. No. RTJ-21-014
[Fonnerly OCA !Pl No. 19-4956-RTJ]

WE CONCUR:

ALF
Senior Associate Justice
I
/11 ?.'
~~
'
RA~iio· A.JVIY C/ LA?ARO-JA VIER
Associate Justice A'.ssociate J usticc

/
On official lea,·e
HKN/fJ!li1lt~1NTING ROD[L V. ZALAJ\1EDA
' •
P:a.SSOCiD.te
jlJ ust]ce
•

C.

RIC1~R. ROSARIO
A sociate Justice

No part and
On official leave
SA.PAR . Dil\'lAAlV!.PAO