Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
$>uprente Qtourt
jflllanlla
FII~ST DIVISION
SERENO, C.J.,
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO,
-versus- BERSAMIN,
VILLARAMA, JR., and
REYES, JJ.
JUDGE MARY .JOSEPHINE P.
LAZARO, REGIONAL TRIAL Pr.omulgated:
COURT, BRANCH 74,
ANTIPOLO CITY, SEP 02 .2013 ..
Respondent.
X---------------------------------------------------------------------
RESOLUTION
BERSAMIN, J.:
Antecedents
Through the aforecited resolution, the Court adopted and approved the
following recommendations contained in the Report dated February 6, 2012
of the Ot1ice of the Court Administrator (OCA), to wit:
b. The delay had been only of a few days beyond the period
for resolving the Motion to Dismiss in Civil Case No. 10-
9049, but such delay was necessary and not undue, and did
not constitute gross inefficiency on her part in the manner
that the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary would consider to be the subject of a sanction.
Ruling
1.
Respondent Judges right
to due process should be respected
1
Rollo, p. 119.
2
Id. at 15.
Resolution 3 A.M. No. RTJ-12-2320
(specifically: (1) that dated May 18, 2011; 3 (2) that dated June 13, 2011; 4 (3)
that dated June 17, 2011; 5 and (4) that dated July 5, 2011 6), and the fifth
being the verified complaint he had filed in the OCA. 7 All the five
complaints prayed that respondent Judge be held administratively liable: (a)
for gross ignorance of the law for ruling that her court did not have
jurisdiction over Civil Case No. 10-9049 because of the failure of the
plaintiffs to aver in their complaint the assessed value of the 37,098.34
square meter parcel of land involved the action; and (b) for undue delay in
resolving the Motion to Dismiss of the defendants.
In its directive issued on July 27, 2011, however, the OCA required
respondent Judge to comment only on the verified complaint dated July 20,
2011. 8 Thus, she was not notified about the four letters-complaint, nor
furnished copies of them. Despite the lack of notice to her, the OCA
considered the four letters-complaint as supplemental complaints in its
Report dated February 6, 2012, 9 a sure indication that the four letters-
complaint were taken into serious consideration in arriving at the adverse
recommendation against her.
3
Id. at 54-57.
4
Id. at 49-53.
5
Id. at 61-63.
6
Id. at 28-29.
7
Id. at 1-5.
8
Id. at 68.
9
Id. at 116-119.
10
Catbagan v. Barte, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1452, April 6, 2005, 455 SCRA 1, 8.
Resolution 4 A.M. No. RTJ-12-2320
Only the verified complaint dated July 20, 2011 met the requirements
of Section 1, supra. The four letters-complaint did not include sworn
affidavits or public records of indubitable integrity. Instead, they came only
with a mere photocopy of the denial of the Motion to Dismiss, which was
not even certified. The OCAs reliance on them as supplemental
complaints thus exposed the unfairness of the administrative investigation.
11
See Sinsuat v. Hidalgo, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2133, August 6, 2008, 561 SCRA 38, 46.
Resolution 5 A.M. No. RTJ-12-2320
2.
Respondent Judges delay in resolving
the Motion to Dismiss was not undue
The 90-day period within which a sitting trial Judge should decide a
case or resolve a pending matter is mandatory. The period is reckoned from
the date of the filing of the last pleading. If the Judge cannot decide or
resolve within the period, she can be allowed additional time to do so,
provided she files a written request for the extension of her time to decide
the case or resolve the pending matter. 12 Only a valid reason may excuse a
delay.
Regarding the Motion to Dismiss filed in Civil Case No. 10-9049, the
last submission was the Sur-Rejoinder submitted on December 16, 2010 by
defendants-movants SM Development Corporation, et al. As such, the 90th
day fell on March 16, 2011. Respondent Judge resolved the Motion to
Dismiss only on May 6, 2011, the 51st day beyond the end of the period to
resolve. Concededly, she did not file a written request for additional time to
resolve the pending Motion to Dismiss. Nor did she tender any explanation
for not filing any such request for time.
12
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court - Branch 56, Mandaue City,
Cebu, A.M. No. 09-7-284-RTC, February 16, 2011. 643 SCRA 407, 413414.
Resolution 6 A.M. No. RTJ-12-2320
This failure does happen frequently when one is too preoccupied with
too much work and is faced with more deadlines that can be humanly met.
Most men call this failure inadvertence. A few characterize it as oversight.
In either case, it is excusable except if it emanated from indolence, neglect,
or bad faith.
With her good faith being presumed, the accuser bore the burden of
proving respondent Judges indolence, neglect, or bad faith. But Lubaton did
not come forward with that proof. He ignored the notices for him to take
part, apparently sitting back after having filed his several letters-complaint
and the verified complaint. The ensuing investigation did not also unearth
and determine whether she was guilty of, or that the inadvertence or
oversight emanated from indolence, neglect, or bad faith. The Court is then
bereft of anything by which to hold her administratively liable for the failure
to resolve the Motion to Dismiss within the prescribed period. For us to still
hold her guilty nonetheless would be speculative, if not also whimsical.
x x x as always, the Court is not only a court of Law and Justice, but
also a court of compassion. The Court would be a mindless tyrant
otherwise. The Court does not also sit on a throne of vindictiveness, for its
seat is always placed under the inspiring aegis of that grand lady in a
flowing robe who wears the mythical blindfold that has symbolized
through the ages of man that enduring quality of objectivity and fairness,
and who wields the balance that has evinced the highest sense of justice
Resolution 7 A.M. No. RTJ-12-2320
for all regardless of their station in life. It is that Court that now considers
13
and htvorably resolves the reiterative plea of .Justice Ong.
SO ORDERED.
WE CONCUR:
~ tf/2~A~~ lu ~
TERESITA .J~EON~DO-DE CASTRO ~:vn_,LAR
Associate Justice
IENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice
13
Asst. 5i'pecial Prosecutor III Rohermia .!. .Jamsani-RoJriguez v. .lustic.:.s Gregor)' S Ong, .lose R.
flernand.:.z. and Rodo(ji1 A. Ponferrada. Saruliganbavan, A.M. No. 08-1 Y-SB-J, February 19, 2013.