Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 24, 2006.

OCA I.P.I NO. 06-2413-RTJ (Gliceria Sarmiento v. Judge Ramon A. Cruz)

For consideration is the Report of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) dated 05 May 2006.

In a complaint dated 01 December 2005, Gliceria Sarmiento charged Judge Ramon A. Cruz, RTC Branch 223, Quezon City, with Gross Inefficiency and Misconduct relative to Civil Case No. Q-03-49437, entitled "Gliceria Sarmiento v. Emerita Zaratan." According to Sarmiento, respondent unduly delayed the resolution of her Motion for Reconsideration filed on 20 September 2004, and Urgent Ex-parte Manifestation and Motion filed on 14 March 2005, and even antedated his 19 January 2005 Order resolving complainant's Motion for Reconsideration.[1] In addition, respondent allegedly showed great indecisiveness and gross inefficiency when he changed his position relative to the issue of whether back rentals can be released to complainant while there is a pending action in the appellate courts.[2]

In his Comment,[3] respondent denied the charges and claimed that "complainant's diatribe is self-inflicted."[4] According to respondent, complainant's counsel should have asserted her rights under the writ of execution issued on 28 August 2003, and not file her numerous motions for clarification and consideration regarding a clear and explicit order. Complainant's motions have actually been acted upon expeditiously and with dispatch. In fact, the motion for reconsideration adverted to by complainant was the fourth motion treating the same issue which had already been decided in the 03 May 2004 order.[5]

The OCA found that there is no factual basis to sustain the charge of Gross Inefficiency against respondent. However, it noted that respondent unduly delayed the resolution of complainant's motion for reconsideration, as it took him four (4) months to resolve a pending incident which he is obliged to resolve with dispatch within a period of three (3) months. The OCA recommended that respondent be reminded to be more prompt in resolving pending incidents.[6]

The complaint must be dismissed.

The complaint has no basis. The record shows that in the series of motions which complainant filed she raised the same issue of whether she can withdraw the supersedeas bond and the back rentals deposited by the defendant in the case a quo and that respondent invariably ruled in the negative. Complainant's ex parte manifestation and motion was in fact her fifth motion treating the same incident. Complainant's filing of successive similar motions despite the clear orders of respondent have resulted in wasting the precious time and resources of the court.

In view of the foregoing, the administrative complaint against respondent JUDGE RAMON A. CRUZ, RTC Branch 223, Quezon City is DISMISSED for lack of merit. He is, however, REMINDED to be more prompt in resolving cases and incidents pending before his sala.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO

Clerk of Court