Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > October 1991 Decisions > A.M. No. RTJ-90-583 October 4, 1991 - MANOLO D. ADRIANO v. EUSTAQUIO P. STO. DOMINGO:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-90-583. October 4, 1991.]

MANOLO D. ADRIANO, Complainant, v. JUDGE EUSTAQUIO, P. STO. DOMINGO, Respondent.

David I. Unay, Jr. for complainant


SYLLABUS


1. ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; JUDGES; DUTY TO DISPOSE THE CASE WITHIN THE PERIOD PRESCRIBED BY LAW. — The promulgation of the decision in Civil Case No. 581-83-C from the time of its submission took three years. Such a delay is inexcusably long, and shows that the respondent judge was not performing his duties properly. We held: . . . (The) unexplained and prolonged inaction, encompassing three lengthy years to dispose said case cannot be ignored or countenanced. These habits of indecision must be sedulously curtailed . . . [And] is proof of gross negligence, incompetence and inefficiency in the performance of judicial duties. The respondent judge can not take refuge behind the excuse that his age has "probably" taken a toll on his efficiency. Nor can he blame his court personnel for his own incompetence or negligence. Nor can he justify his dilly-dallying by saving he was in the thick of preparations for deciding three other cases. It was his duty to take note of the cases submitted for decision and see to it that the same are decided within the ninety-day period fixed by law.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:


For the delay in deciding Civil Case No. 581-83-C entitled Luciano Adriano v. Ester Sumadsad, Et Al., which was submitted for decision as early as November 23, 1987, but subsequently promulgated only on November 26, 1990, Judge Eustaquio P. Sto. Domingo of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 35, Calamba, Laguna is charged with gross negligence and inefficiency in the performance of judicial duties.chanrobles.com.ph : virtual law library

The verified complaint had been filed by Manolo D. Adriano, one of the plaintiffs, in case filed on November 5, 1979 with the RTC, Branch 35, Calamba, Laguna, presided over by the respondent judge. Manolo had substituted Luciano Adriano, his father, who had passed away during the pendency of the case.

After a protracted trial, the case was submitted for decision on November 23, 1987. Almost two (2) years elapsed, but no decision had been forthcoming. Consequently, on March 17, 1989, Manolo D. Adriano, brought this matter to the attention of the Court by a letter addressed to the Court Administrator.

Accordingly, the Court Administrator sent three (3) successive endorsement letters directing the respondent judge to resolve the case at once. The first was dated March 21, 1989, the second, October 24, 1989, and the third, January 19, 1990. All these proddings of the Court Administrator were unheeded by the respondent judge who simply ignored them.

Changing tack, on March 23, 1990, the plaintiffs in the main case, through Atty. Gilbert Camaligan, filed a Motion to Render Decision. Still this did not merit the attention of the respondent judge, as he rendered no decision on the case. Now losing patience, Manolo D. Adriano on September 25, 1990, filed the present complaint charging the respondent judge as stated at the outset for gross negligence and inefficiency in the performance of judicial duties.

Finally, the judge took action. In an attempt to exculpate himself, Judge Eustaquio P. Sto. Domingo in his answer dated November 15, 1990, recounted thus:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

At the outset, it must be explained that the subject Civil Case is one [sic] among the two hundred fifty (250) cases which your respondent inherited from former presiding judges of Branch 35, RTC, Calamba, Laguna, which he took over on January 16, 1987. In fact the case was tried by Judges Restituto Q. Luz and Joselito P. Dela Rosa who both presided (over) the Court before your Respondent.

When your respondent took over Branch 35 on January 16, 1987, the case was already undergoing trial. There were several transcript of records however [sic] which were not appended to the records that must be considered before your respondent can ably try the case. Needless to explain, there was already delay in the trial of the case. As early as December 1989, your respondent had already drafter a decision in this case. The drafting of this decision coincided with his preparation of three (3) other decisions for three (3) other cases. Your respondent handed this draft decision for typing to his stenographer together with the semi-final drafts of the decision in the three (3) other cases. For some unaccountable reasons, the stenographer who typed the clean draft of the decision in this case, appended the draft to the record.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

Branch 35 relocated from the court site at Canlubang, Calamba, Laguna to the town proper of Calamba on December 27, 1989 when the present Bulwagan ng Katarungan was constructed. It was not until your respondent received your letter on November 5, 1990 that your respondent’s attention was called to the case. He looked for the record and discovered the same in the inactive file of the court. The records when located disclosed the typewritten draft which was given the typist for typing.

It would thus appear that the decision in this subject case was completely forgotten until your letter came. For this reason, your respondent pleads for understanding and since age is probably catching up with him. In any event, should your respondent be granted a period up to the end of this month to promulgate his decisions, he would, with assurance be able to decide the case.

Eventually, but belatedly, on November 26, 1990, the respondent Judge promulgated the decision in the said case.

Evidently, the promulgation of the decision in Civil Case No. 581-83-C from the time of its submission took three years. Such a delay is inexcusably long, and shows that the respondent judge was not performing his duties properly. 1 We held:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

. . . (The) unexplained and prolonged inaction, encompassing three lengthy years to dispose said case cannot be ignored or countenanced. These habits of indecision must be sedulously curtailed. 2 . . . [And] is proof of gross negligence, incompetence and inefficiency in the performance of judicial duties. 3

The respondent judge can not take refuge behind the excuse that his age has "probably" taken a toll on his efficiency. Nor can he blame his court personnel for his own incompetence or negligence. Nor can he justify his dilly-dallying by saying he was in the thick of preparations for deciding three other cases. It was his duty to take note of the cases submitted for decision and see to it that the same are decided within the ninety-day period fixed by law.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

PREMISES CONSIDERED, respondent Judge Eustaquio P. Sto. Domingo is hereby found guilty of the administrative charge against him for failure to decide Civil Case No. 581-83-C within the prescribed period of ninety days. He is hereby ordered to pay a fine of ten thousand (P10,000) pesos, with a warning that a repetition of this offense will be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this resolution be attached to respondent’s records.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., JJ., concur.

Endnotes:



1. See Sec. 15, Art. VIII, 1987 Constitution and Sec. 5, R.A. 296.

2. Adm. Matter No. 2113-MJ, April 22, 1981, Penera v. Judge Dalocanog, 104 SCRA 193, 195.

3. In re Judge Jose F. Madara, Adm. Matter No. 2351, CFI, April 24, 1981, 104 SCRA 245, 250.




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






October-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 89093 October 2, 1991 - POE MINING ASSOCIATION, ET AL. v. CANCIO C. GARCIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96141 October 2, 1991 - EVANGELISTA GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 53837 October 3, 1991 - FELIX PAINAGA v. NOLI MA. CORTES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81567 October 3, 1991 - IN RE: ROBERTO UMIL, ET AL. v. FIDEL V. RAMOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85464 October 3, 1991 - DAVID P. LLORENTE v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 87184-85 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RICHARD VIRAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88636 October 3, 1991 - LINA B. OCTAVIANO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 89325-26 October 3, 1991 - DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUNICATIONS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90739 October 3, 1991 - NATIONAL FEDERATION OF LABOR UNIONS, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91162 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO F. CARAIG

  • G.R. No. 91271 October 3, 1991 - RESTITUTO P. RIZON v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91626 October 3, 1991 - FRANKLIN DRILON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91716 October 3, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO T. CAMPOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95136 October 3, 1991 - RAFAEL BAYLOSIS, ET AL. v. APOLONIO R. CHAVEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 90-474 October 4, 1991 - CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA v. ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-583 October 4, 1991 - MANOLO D. ADRIANO v. EUSTAQUIO P. STO. DOMINGO

  • G.R. No. 60714 October 4, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. JAPAN AIR LINES, INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 79004-08 October 4, 1991 - FRANKLIN BAGUIO, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83697 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FRANCISCO BENITEZ, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83720 October 4, 1991 - FELICITAS ENRIQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88233 October 4, 1991 - OSCAR NATIVIDAD, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 91109 October 4, 1991 - SARKIES AND MOLAVE TOURS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 92646-47 October 4, 1991 - AUGUSTO TOLEDO v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93300 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDDIE BALLINAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93550 October 4, 1991 - SSFBWA v. SECRETARY OF LABOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95026 October 4, 1991 - SPS. PEDRO and ANGELINA TELAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95625 October 4, 1991 - HIYAS SAVINGS AND LOAN BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95680 October 4, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO NGO

  • G.R. No. 82350 October 7, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ISAAC LONDOÑO

  • G.R. No. 93464 October 7, 1991 - REYMA BROKERAGE, INC. v. PHILIPPINE HOME ASS. CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95582 October 7, 1991 - DANGWA TRANS. CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90745 October 10, 1991 - INTER-CAPITOL MARKETING CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93690 October 10, 1991 - ERECTORS, INCORPORATED v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97332 October 10, 1991 - SPS. JULIO D. VILLAMOR AND MARINA VILLAMOR v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97664 October 10, 1991 - OUANO ARRASTRE SERVICE, INC. v. PEARY G. ALEONAR, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 90-7-1159-MTC October 15, 1991 - IN RE: SOLICITATION OF DONATIONS BY JUDGE BENJAMIN H. VIRREY

  • Adm. Matter No. P-91-602 October 15, 1991 - RAYMUNDO Z. ANNANG v. TERESlTA GARAMPIL VDA. DE BLAS

  • Adm. Case No. 1424 October 15, 1991 - ISMAELA DIMAGIBA v. JOSE MONTALVO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 73504 October 15, 1991 - BALMAR FARMS, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 78781-82 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO RAVELO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81093 October 15, 1991 - PORAC TRUCKING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 85133 October 15, 1991 - FLORITA E. DALUYON v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMM.

  • G.R. No. 86926 October 15, 1991 - CESAR E. A. VIRATA v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90319 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO BRIONES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 91363-73 October 15, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEOPOLDO VINAS

  • G.R. Nos. 92362-67 October 15, 1991 - CIRILO A. CINCO, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92542 October 15, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHILIPPINES v. ZENAIDA ELEPANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94677 October 15, 1991 - ORIGINAL DEV’T. AND CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95624 October 15, 1992

    DANTE G. BUGAYONG v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96535 October 15, 1991 - INOCENCIO PARI-AN, ET AL. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96859 October 15, 1991 - MOHAMMAD ALI DIMAPORO v. RAMON V. MITRA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96938 October 15, 1991 - GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97105 October 15, 1991 - ROSETTE YNIGUEZ LERIAS v. HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES ELECTORAL TRIBUNAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 99031 October 15, 1991 - RODOLFO D. LLAMAS v. OSCAR ORBOS, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 1359 October 17, 1991 - GENEROSA BUTED, ET AL. v. HAROLD M. HERNANDO

  • G.R. Nos. 79926-27 October 17, 1991 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE, INC., ET AL. v. CITIBANK, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 80747-48 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MERLO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. No. 92241 October 17, 1991 - LILIA T. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92447 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VENERANDO NEBREJA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92633 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SALVADOR SADIA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96016 October 17, 1991 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96368-69 October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERUBIEN Z. NABAYRA

  • G.R. No. 96713. October 17, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO ARBOLANTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98023 October 17, 1991 - MULTINATIONAL VILLAGE HOMEOWNERS’ ASSOCIATION, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 45031 October 21, 1991 - NANERICO D. SANTOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 50264 October 21, 1991 - IGNACIO WONG v. LUCAS D. CARPIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 56487 October 21, 1991 - REYNALDA GATCHALIAN v. ARSENIO DELIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 81756 October 21, 1991 - NICOMEDES SILVA, ET AL. v. REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF NEGROS ORIENTAL

  • G.R. No. 85176 October 21, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DENNIS MENDOZA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83498 October 22, 1991 - SPS. MIGUEL S. JUANITA KHO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 33438 October 28, 1991 - REPUBLIC RESOURCES AND DEV’T. CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 44712 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEONARDO L. SERRANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 55393 October 28, 1991 - FAGEL TABIN AGRICULTURAL, CORP. v. EMILIO A. JACINTO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 71562 October 28, 1991 - JOSE C. LAUREL V v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 74070-71 October 28, 1991 - SUNSHINE FINANCE AND INVESTMENT CORP. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 74197 October 28, 1991 - JOSEPHINE L. LUCERO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMM., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 84730 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CONRADO GABATIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 88301 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN RAMOS, JR.

  • G.R. No. 93413 October 28, 1991 - EDWIN DEL CARMEN v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94369 October 28, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO CO

  • G.R. No. 94521 October 28, 1991 - OLIVER O. LOZANO v. HAYDEE B. YORAC

  • G.R. No. 95631 October 28, 1991 - METALS ENGINEERING RESOURCES CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98273 October 28, 1991 - CLARITA V. CRUZ v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100239 October 28, 1991 - BONIFACIO S. MACEDA, JR., ET AL. v. MOREMAN BUILDERS CO., INC., ET AL.