ATTY. RANDY P. BARENG v. JUDGE ZENAIDA R.

DAGUNA
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2246, 1 June 2011, THIRD DIVISION (BRION, J.)

Rule 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides for a judges diligent discharge of his
administrative responsibilities, professional competence in court management, and performance of
the administrative functions or other judges and court personnel.

Atty. Randy Bareng is the counsel of Romulo Awingan, one of the accused in a Criminal Case
for double murder. The consolidated cases were subsequently re-raffled to the Regional Trial Court
(RTC), Manila, Branch 19, presided by Judge Zenaida Daguna. Atty. Bareng accused Judge Daguna of
gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions of her office. Allegedly, Judge Daguna
acknowledged that shed had knowledge of the failure to mail her 31 July 2007 Order; that her 21
May 2008 Order giving due course to the Notice of Appeal was not released on time; and that she
attempted to escape responsibility as regards the failure of the court staff in mailing the said twin
Orders by stating that they were resolved on time. Judge Dagunas issuance of the 31 July 2007
Order is beyond the 90-day reglementary period reckoned from the Motion for Reconsideration
dated 31 January 2007.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Dacuna is guilty of gross misconduct and manifest abuse of functions
of her office.

RULING:

YES. Judge Daguna violated Rule 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which provides for a
judges diligent discharge of his administrative responsibilities, professional competence in court
management, and performance of the administrative functions or other judges and court personnel.
There was also a delay in sending the records of the appealed case to the CA. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of
the Code of Judicial Conduct provides that a judge shall dispose of the courts business promptly and
decide cases within the required periods.

In addition to gross inefficiency, Judge Daguna is also guilty of delay in rendering an order,
as well as delay in transmitting the records of a case. Based on Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the
penalty for a less serious charge is either suspension or a fine.