ATTY. UBALDINO A.

LACUROM,
Complainant,
- versus -
JUDGE JUANITA C. TIENZO, Regional Trial Court, Branc !", Ca#anatuanCit$,
Respondent.
%ACT&:
On the second charge relating to Civil Case No. 4884, complainant alleges that respondent judge rendered a Decision
[4
in violation o! the
constitutional mandate to state clearl" and distinctl" the !acts and the la# on #hich it is $ased, and %ection &, Rule '( o! the Rules o! Court echoing
the same re)uisite.
[*

Complainant !urther charges that respondent judge issued an order #ritten in the +nglish language, and in a !ashion that does not $e!it an R,C
-udge #hich there$" demonstrates her incompetence and lac. o! diligence. /o#ever, complainant discloses that the inclusion o! the !oregoing
matter in his administrative complaint #as merel" at the $ehest o! his !ormer colleague, 0eliciano 1uenaventura, a retired presiding judge o! R,C,
1ranch 23, Ca$anatuan Cit".

Respondent judge ruled in this #ise, to #it:

D + C 4 % 4 O N
5!ter a cursor" stud" o! this appealed case o! 6nla#!ul Detainer, this Court !inds that the procedural due process [has
$een complied #ith under the %ummar" 7rocedure. ,he Decision o! the8o#er Court cannot $e distur$ed $" this Court.

9/+R+0OR+, the Decision o! the said 8o#er Court, :,CC, 1ranch 444, Ca$anatuan Cit", is here$" 5004R:+D en toto.

%O ORD+R+D.

Ca$anatuan Cit", -ul" 2&, 2;;*.
I&&UE:
9hether or not espondent judge rendered a Decision in violation o! the constitutional mandate to state clearl" and distinctl" the !acts and the la# on
#hich it is $ased. << =+%.
RULING:
,he )uoted decision does not measure up to the clear constitutional command:
[&4

%+C. &4. No decision shall $e rendered $" an" court #ithout e>pressing therein clearl" and distinctl" the !acts and the la# on #hich it is
$ased.
%ection &, Rule '( o! the Rules o! Court li.e#ise re!lects the !oregoing mandate, thus:
%+C,4ON &. Rendition of judgments and final orders. ? 5 judgment or !inal order determining the merits o! the case shall $e in #riting
personall" and directl" prepared $" the judge, stating clearl" and distinctl" the !acts and the la# on #hich it is $ased, signed $" him, and
!iled #ith the cler. o! court.
5lthough #e have sustained the validit" o! memorandum decisions on several occasions,
[&(
#e laid do#n speci!ic re)uirements !or the proper utilit"
thereo!:

,he memorandum decision, to $e valid, cannot incorporate the !indings o! !act and the conclusions o! la# o! the lo#er court
onl" $" remote re!erence, #hich is to sa" that the challenged decision is not easil" and immediatel" availa$le to the person
reading the memorandum decision. 0or the incorporation $" re!erence to $e allo#ed, it must provide !or direct access to the
!acts and the la# $eing adopted, #hich must $e contained in a statement attached to the said decision. 4n other #ords, the
memorandum decision authori@ed under %ection 4; o! 1.7. 1lg. &2A should actuall" em$od" the !indings o! !act and
conclusions o! la# o! the lo#er court in an anne> attached to and made an indispensa$le part o! the decision.

4t is e>pected that this re)uirement #ill alla" suspicion that no stud" #as made o! the decision o! the lo#er court and that its
decision #as merel" a!!irmed #ithout a proper e>amination o! the !acts and la# on #hich it is $ased. ,he proximity at least o!
the anne>ed statement should suggest that such an e>amination has $een underta.en. 4t is, o! course, also understood that the
decision $eing adopted should, to $egin #ith, compl" #ith 5rticle B444, %ection &4 as no amount o! incorporation or adoption #ill
recti!" its violation.

,he Court !inds it necessar" to emphasi@e that the memorandum decision should $e sparingl" used lest it $ecome an addictive
e>cuse !or judicial sloth. 4t is an additional condition !or its validit" that this .ind o! decision ma" $e resorted onl" in cases #here
the !acts are in the main accepted $" $oth parties or easil" determina$le $" the judge and there are no doctrinal complications
involved that #ill re)uire an e>tended discussion o! the la#s involved. ,he memorandum decision ma" $e emplo"ed in simple
litigations onl", such as ordinar" collection cases, #here the appeal is o$viousl" groundless and deserves no more than the
time needed to dismiss it.
4t is o$vious that the decision rendered $" respondent judge !ailed to con!orm to this re)uirement. ,he cr"ptic decision simpl" re!erenced the
appealed decision o! the :,CC and !orth#ith !ound the same as compliant #ith procedural due process under the Rules o! %ummar" 7rocedure.
No#here in the decision does respondent judge ma.e a statement o! the !acts #hich led to the !iling o! the appeal. :ore importantl", the decision
does not contain respondent judgeCs !actual !indings, al$eit a!!irming those o! the :,CC, !rom #hich she $ased her conclusions o! la#. 4nelucta$l",
respondent judge transgressed the constitutional directive.
/ence!orth, all memorandum decisions shall compl" #ith the re)uirements herein set !orth as to the !orm prescri$ed and the occasions
#hen the" ma" $e rendered. 5n" deviation #ill summon the strict en!orcement o! 5rticle B444, %ection &4 o! the Constitution and stri.e
do#n the !la#ed judgment as a la#less diso$edience.
[&8

5lthough not ever" judicial error signi!ies ignorance o! the la# #hich #arrants administrative sanction, this holds true onl" in instances o!
tolera$le misjudgment. 9here, ho#ever, an elementar" constitutional mandate is violated, the $lunder constitutes ignorance o! the la#.