Hilado vs Judge Reyes G.R. No. 163155. July 21, 2006. Information !!ess to Re!ords "a!ts#
During the lifetime of Roberto Benedicto, petitioners Alfredo Hilado and company filed two complaints for damages or collection of sums of money in RTC of Bacolod City. From anuary !""! until #o$ember !""%, the Branch Cler& of Court of Branch !' of the (anila RTC allowed petitioners through their counsel )edigo and Associates to e*amine the records of the case and to secure certified true copies thereof. By December !""%, Atty. +race aredes, an associate associate of petitioners petitioners-- counsel, counsel, was denied access to the last folderreco folderrecord rd of the case which, according to the court-s clerical staff, could not be located and was probably inside the chambers of public respondent for safe&eeping. etitioners- counsel re/uested udge Reyes to allow Atty. arede aredess to person personall ally y chec& chec& the record recordss of the case. case. The 01C23egal 01C23egal Research Researcher er told told the petitioners- counsel that udge Reyes Re yes authori4ed only the parties or those with authority from the parties to in/uire or $erify the status of the pending case in court. They may go o$er the records if they are authori4ed by the administrari*, which in this case was the wife, ulia Benedicto. 1ntending to compare the list of properties in the estate-s in$entory, petitioners- counsel sent the Branch Cler& of Court of Branch !' of the (anila RTC a letter re/uesting to be furnished with certified true copies of the 5updated in$entory6 of the properties of the deceased. And through another letter, they re/uested to be furnished with certified true copies of the order issued by the court during the hearing of February '%, !""7, as well as the transcript of stenographic notes ta&en thereon. The respondent udge ignored the motion of inhibition filed by the petitioners- counsel on the grounds grounds of gross gross ignora ignorance nce,, dereli derelicti ction on of duty, duty, and manifes manifestt partia partialit lity y toward towardss the administrat administratri*. ri*. ublic respondent respondent issued issued in an order why petitioners petitioners had no standing standing to file the (otion for 1nhibition as well as to re/uest for certified true copies of documents. udge said that since they were not allowed to inter$ene in the proceedings per order of this Court dated anuary !, !""!, copies of all pleadings2orders filed2issued relati$e to this case may only be secured from the administratri* or counsel. etitioners contend that the records of the case are public records to which the public has the right to access, inspect and obtain official copies thereof, recognition of which right is en8oined under )ection 9, Article 111 of the Constitution and )ection !, Rule '%: and )ection '', Rule '%; of the Rules of Court. etitioners also argue that public respondent manifested her arbitrariness, malice and partiality through her blatant disregard of basic rules in the disposition and safe&eeping of court records, and her denial of their right to access the records suffices to bar her from presiding o$er the case< and public respondent-s incompetence, malice, bad faith and partiality are underscored by b y her failure to enforce for more than three years the re/uirement of the Rules of Court on the prompt submission by the administratri* of her final in$entory and the filing of a periodic accounting of her administration. Issue# '. =hether a writ of mandamus may issue to compel public respondent to allow petitioners to e*amine and obtain copies of any or all documents forming part of the records of the case
repared by> ?atrina ). Diploma
'
Held# '. @es
Article 111, )ection 9 guarantees a general right the right to information on matters of 5public concern6 and, as an accessory thereto, the right of access to 5official records.6 The right to information on 5matters of public concern or of public interest6 is both the purpose and the limit of the constitutional right of access to public document. The term 58udicial record6 or 5court record6 does not only refer to the orders, 8udgment or $erdict of the courts. 1t includes the official collection of all papers, e*hibits and pleadings filed by the parties, all processes issued and returns made thereon, appearances, and wordfor word testimony which too& place during the trial and which are in the possession, custody, or control of the 8udiciary or of the courts for purposes of rendering court decisions. 1t has also been described to include any paper, letter, map, boo&, other document, tape, photograph, film, audio or $ideo recording, court reporter-s notes, transcript, data compilation, or other materials, whether in physical or electronic form, made or recei$ed pursuant to law or in connection with the transaction of any official business by the court, and includes all e$idence it has recei$ed in a case. Access to court records may be permitted at the discretion and sub8ect to the super$isory and protecti$e powers of the court, after considering the actual use or purpose for which the re/uest for access is based. 1n this case, the petitioners- stated main purpose for accessing the records is to monitor prompt compliance with the Rules go$erning the preser$ation and proper disposition of the assets of the estate, hence they are 5interested persons6 in the case. 1f any party, counsel or person has a legitimate reason to ha$e a copy of court records and pays court fees, court may not deny access to such records.
repared by> ?atrina ). Diploma
!
