Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1974 > July 1974 Decisions > A.M. No. 144-CFI July 18, 1914

RUFINA BENDESULA v. ALFREDO C. LAYA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. 144-CFI. July 18, 1974.]

RUFINA BENDESULA, Complainant, v. JUDGE ALFREDO C. LAYA, CFI, CEBU, BRANCH XII, ARGAO, Respondent.


D E C I S I O N


ESGUERRA, J.:


A letter-complaint addressed to the President by Mrs. Rufina Bendesula which was referred to the Secretary of Justice who in turn forwarded the record of the case to this Court after we have assumed administrative supervision over inferior courts under the New Constitution, is the basis of this case against District Judge Alfredo C. Laya, Court of First Instance, Argao, Cebu, who is charged with alleged undue delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 9739 (AV-177), entitled "Urbano Bendesula, Plaintiff v. Celestina Templanza, et al, Defendants", then pending in the respondent’s court. The respondent was requested to comment thereon, considering that an examination of the monthly reports submitted by respondent’s Clerk of Court from April to November of 1972, did not show the aforementioned civil case as pending in his court. He explained that the cause of delay in the disposition of the civil case could be attributed to the parties themselves who failed to submit their memoranda, and to the failure of Docket Clerk Timoteo Egos to submit to Clerk of Court Rafael P. de la Victoria an ex-parte motion for extension of time to file memorandum sent by registered mail by the counsel for plaintiff in said Civil Case No. AV-177, thus preventing the Clerk of Court from calling the attention of the respondent to the pending motion. The respondent vehemently protested the insinuation of his being a misfit in the service contained in the letter-complaint and invoked his twenty three years of public service in the national and local government and his record in the judiciary as a career man possessed of integrity and independence.

This Court referred the case to Hon. Justice Emilio Gancayco of the Court of Appeals on August 10, 1973, for investigation, report and recommendation. On the very day that the case was set for investigation, the Investigator received by registered mail a motion for dismissal of the administrative case sent by Atty. Jesus Ermeña Campos, counsel for complainant Rufina Bendesula, with an affidavit of desistance, stating that complainant never intended to file an administrative charge nor asked for investigation of respondent and her intention was merely to seek an early disposition of the civil case wherein her son is the plaintiff. On the strength of the above mentioned motion to dismiss, the respondent asked also for the dismissal of the case, but the Investigator required him to present evidence.

The respondent testified in his defense that his sala at Argao, Cebu is a new one, all the personnel being new and inexperienced in the service so that he practically had to supervise everything; that his court is undermanned, there being no Deputy Clerk of Court and other necessary clerks; that his Legal Researcher acts as Court-Interpreter; that he had to go to Cebu City (67 kilometers away) to research in the law library of the Court of First Instance at his own expense; that his court has very inadequate law books; that he even had to supervise the repair of his chambers, being a new sala; that since he had been detailed before to Branch VII, at Barili and to Branch II, in Cebu City, he had to continue, as required by an administrative order, the hearing of cases that he had partially began in those two branches; that his office has incomplete equipment; that he had to leave his station to attend to the hearing of Civil Case No. 22111, entitled "Alfredo C. Laya et al v. Concepcion Tengson", filed in the City Court of Quezon City, an ejectment case he personally filed and had to attend to personally, the hearing of which was postponed seven times notwithstanding his opposition; that in his five years of service in the Judiciary, he can recall only one case appealed to the Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court where his decision was reversed on a mistake of the appellee and not due to his decision.

The respondent also stated that when he assumed office in his permanent station after his appointment to the judiciary on August 28, 1968, he had more than 300 cases pending but at the time he testified there were only about 190 cases. When he was assigned at Branch II, in Cebu City, his average monthly case disposal was 20 to 25, because of the availability of law library facilities and experienced personnel, but in his station at Argao his average monthly rate of case disposal is only 15 because of the inadequacy of facilities previously mentioned.

When the delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. AV-177 was brought to respondent’s attention, he reprimanded the Clerk of Court and the Docket Clerk for their failure to comply with respondent’s instruction to call his attention to cases pending resolution, but considering that both of them were new in the service he gave them another chance to improve. In hearing cases, respondent used to take notes, but lately his right hand was getting numb and he had to discontinue doing so, referring his ailment to a doctor.

It is irrefutedly established that there was a delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. AV-177 after its trial was terminated on March 17, 1972, as it was only decided on March 5, 1973, or about ten months after the extended period for filing memoranda had expired and after the respondent had been required to comment on the letter-complaint. The respondent is presumed to know that under Department of Justice Circular No. 64, dated September 14, 1970, judges should decide cases even if the parties failed to submit memoranda within the given periods. As stated in Circular No. 17, dated March 4, 1963, also of the Department of Justice, "should the parties fail to file their memoranda, the said period of 90 days shall be counted from the expiry date of the period fixed by the court." Circular No. 64, is explicit that "non submission of memoranda" is "not a justification for failure to decide cases."

Respondent’s contention that the parties’ failure to submit memoranda caused the delay in the disposition of the case is, therefore, absolutely untenable. The fault of his Clerk of Court and Docket Clerk for their failure to call his attention to that civil case pending resolution, is at most only a mitigating circumstance in his favor. A judge imbued with a high sense of responsibility and dedicated to the performance of his duties, as respondent would like to impress this Court that he is such one, knowing that the personnel of his court were new and inexperienced in the service, should have taken extraordinary precaution to closely supervise them, to prevent such infractions of mandatory rules as was committed in this case. His should have been fully aware of the reason for the stringent requirement of rendering a decision or resolving motions or other incidents within 90 days, which is to prevent delay in the administration of justice, cognizant as he should be of that well-known adage that justice delayed is justice denied and of the danger that delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary.

Respondent’s omission in causing delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. AV-177 cannot be excused. But in deciding this case We do not lose sight of extenuating circumstances in his favor, such as his good faith in his involuntary omission, prompt action in deciding the case in question when he was made aware of the delay in its disposition, previous good record of 23 years of public service, lack of trained personnel, equipment and facilities in his court at Argao, Cebu, and the fact that he had to attend to cases filed in three different branches of the Court of First Instance of Cebu.

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Alfredo C. Laya is hereby admonished to be more careful and attentive in the performance of his duties and functions and to exercise closer supervision and vigilance over his subordinates.

SO ORDERED.

Makalintal, C.J., Zaldivar, Castro, Fernando, Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Antonio, Fernandez, Muñoz Palma and Aquino, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com






July-1974 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. 395-MJ July 11, 1974 - DOROTEO BUTIAL, ET AL. v. EUSTAQUIO C. PALMA

  • G.R. No. L-24294 July 15, 1974 - DONALD BAER v. TITO V. TIZON

  • G.R. No. L-37606 July 15, 1974 - LEONARDO AVILA v. AUDITOR GENERAL

  • A.M. No. 13-MJ July 18, 1974 - MARIA AIDA JAKOSALEM v. PRECIOSO B. CORDOVEZ

  • A.M. No. 144-CFI July 18, 1914

    RUFINA BENDESULA v. ALFREDO C. LAYA

  • G.R. No. L-30038 July 18, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOAQUIN VELEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-30918 July 18, 1974 - ANNIE SAND, ET AL. v. ABAD SANTOS EDUCATIONAL INSTITUTION

  • G.R. No. L-37068 July 18, 1974 - EULALIA ALFONSO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 91-MJ and No. 319-MJ July 23, 1974 - ANTONIO ABIBUAG v. SEVERINO B. ESTONINA

  • A.M. No. 120-MJ July 23, 1974 - FABIAN GARDONES v. ANDRES MA. DELGADO

  • A.C. No. 1034 July 23, 1974 - LUIS ARBOLEDA v. EDUARDO GATCHALIAN

  • G.R. No. L-24112 July 23, 1974 - ONG SHIAO KONG v. DIRECTOR OF PATENTS

  • G.R. No. L-38129 July 23, 1974 - BOARD OF ADMINISTRATORS, ET AL. v. MARIANO V. AGCAOILI

  • G.R. No. L-38768 July 23, 1974 - ORBIT TRANSPORTATION COMPANY v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 944 July 25, 1974 - FLORA NARIDO v. JAIME S. LINSANGAN

  • G.R. No. L-24426 July 25, 1974 - ROSALINA Z. TIONGCO v. GUILLERMO DE LA MERCED

  • G.R. No. L-25843 July 25, 1974 - MELCHORA CABANAS v. FRANCISCO PILAPIL

  • G.R. No. L-32265 July 25, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO A. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33817 July 25, 1974 - IN RE: PETITION OF ROSAURO JOSE TIONG v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-34974 July 25, 1974 - P. A. ALMIRA, ET AL. v. B. F. GOODRICH PHILIPPINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-37885 July 26, 1974 - LORENZO SUMAGUI, ET AL. v. JACINTA FLORES VDA. DE YATCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38332 July 26, 1974 - LETICIA B. BELMONTE v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1288 July 29, 1974 - FLORAIDA BANARES v. ROSALINO C. BARICAN

  • G.R. No. L-34095 July 29, 1974 - ANECITO DUMALAGAN, ET AL. v. GAUDIOSO PALANGPANGAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. (11-MJ) 498-MJ July 31, 1974 - LUISA GAMELONG, ET AL. v. SILVESTRE TAYSON

  • A.M. No. 508-MJ July 31, 1974 - PEDRO ALMAZAN v. DELFIN ROSARIO, ET AL.

  • UDK-1737 (C.A.-G.R. No. 44976-R July 31, 1974 - CORNELIO ANTIQUERA v. VICENTE M. TUPASI

  • G.R. No. L-24248 July 31, 1974 - ANTONIO TUASON, JR. v. JOSE B. LINGAD

  • G.R. No. L-26374 July 31, 1974 - J. M. TUASON & CO., INC. v. FELIX V. MAKASIAR

  • G.R. No. L-27895 July 31, 1914

    JOSE Y. AREVALO, ET AL. v. MARIANO V. BENEDICTO

  • G.R. No. L-28174 July 31, 1974 - EDUVIGES BELTRAN ESPIRITU, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-28812 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SILVERIO LUNA

  • G.R. Nos. L-29207 & L-29222 July 31, 1974 - VIGAN ELECTRIC LIGHT CO., INC., ET AL. v. LODIVICO D. ARCIAGA

  • G.R. No. L-30051 July 31, 1974 - NATIONAL WATERWORKS AND SEWERAGE AUTHORITY v. NWSA SUPERVISORS ASSOCIATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33304 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICTOR ABLETES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-33643 and L-33644 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO MANZANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-33926 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO GONZALES

  • G.R. No. L-34433 July 31, 1974 - VICENTA OLIVEROS-TORRE v. FLORES BAYOT

  • G.R. No. L-35607 July 31, 1974 - JOHN U. OSMOND v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-36703 July 31, 1974 - GOTARDO FLORDELIS, ET AL. v. HERACLEO CASTILLO

  • G.R. No. L-37599 July 31, 1974 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FLORENTINO COPRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38256 July 31, 1974 - OCTAVIO A. KALALO v. EMILIO V. SALAS

  • G.R. No. L-38568 July 31, 1974 - MELECIA M. MACABUHAY, ET AL. v. JUAN L. MANUEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38871 July 31, 1974 - JUANITO MADARANG v. REYNALDO B. HONRADO