ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™  
Main Index Law Library Philippine Laws, Statutes & Codes Latest Legal Updates Philippine Legal Resources Significant Philippine Legal Resources Worldwide Legal Resources Philippine Supreme Court Decisions United States Jurisprudence
Prof. Joselito Guianan Chan's The Labor Code of the Philippines, Annotated Labor Standards & Social Legislation Volume I of a 3-Volume Series 2019 Edition (3rd Revised Edition)
 

 
Chan Robles Virtual Law Library
 
 

 
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

 
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
 

   
March-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 91935 March 4, 1996 - RODOLFO QUIAMBAO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106043 March 4, 1996 - CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY LANDLESS RESIDENTS ASSOCIATION INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109645 March 4, 1996 - ORTIGAS AND COMPANY LIMITED PARTNERSHIP v. TIRSO VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115365 March 4, 1996 - ESMENIO MADLOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118126 March 4, 1996 - TRANS-ASIA SHIPPING LINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-921 March 5, 1996 - AMPARO A. LACHICA v. ROLANDO A. FLORDELIZA

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-94-1009 March 5, 1996 - ALBERTO NALDOZA v. JUAN LAVILLES, JR.

  • G.R. No. 111501 March 5, 1996 - PHIL. FUJI XEROX CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 113930 March 5, 1996 - PAUL G. ROBERTS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115548 March 5, 1996 - STATE INVESTMENT HOUSE INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1039 March 6, 1996 - FE ALBANO MADRID v. RAYMUNDO RAMIREZ

  • G.R. Nos. 112858-59 March 6, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RALPHY ALCANTARA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120193 March 6, 1996 - LUIS MALALUAN v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. CBD-174 March 7, 1996 - GIOVANI M. IGUAL v. ROLANDO S. JAVIER

  • G.R. No. 66555 March 7, 1996 - LEONCIO MEJARES, ET AL. v. JUAN Y. REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 95353-54 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAULINO PAT

  • G.R. No. 109390 March 7, 1996 - JGB and ASSOCIATES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112445 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLOS V. PATROLLA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 113710 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND V. JUAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116011 March 7, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RHODESA B. SILAN

  • G.R. No. 117650 March 7, 1996 - SULPICIO LINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120905 March 7, 1996 - RENATO U. REYES v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95260 March 8, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO C. PRADO

  • G.R. No. 110983 March 8, 1996 - REYNALDO GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Case No. 2024 March 11, 1996 - SALVADOR T. CASTILLO v. PABLO M. TAGUINES

  • G.R. No. 108625 March 11, 1996 - ALLIANCE OF DEMOCRATIC FREE LABOR ORGANIZATION v. BIENVENIDO LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113194 March 11, 1996 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119381 March 11, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. JOSE BRILLANTES

  • G.R. No. 96882 March 12, 1996 - EUTIQUIANO PAGARA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109800 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO N. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 114388 March 12, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINGO TRILLES, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-94-4-156 March 13, 1996 - IN RE: FERNANDO P. AGDAMAG

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-96-1344 March 13, 1996 - VERONICA GONZALES v. LUCAS P. BERSAMIN

  • G.R. No. 101332 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARO BERNAL

  • G.R. No. 101699 March 13, 1996 - BENJAMIN A. SANTOS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104088-89 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VICENTE JAIN, ET AL

  • G.R. No. 108743 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARNALDO B. DONES

  • G.R. No. 112193 March 13, 1996 - JOSE E. ARUEGO, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112546 March 13, 1996 - NORTH DAVAO MINING CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119073 March 13, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DIAZ

  • G.R. No. 120223 March 13, 1996 - RAMON Y. ALBA v. DEPUTY OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101070 March 14, 1996 - BALAYAN COLLEGES, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102062 March 14, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CAMILO FERRER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104685 March 14, 1996 - SABENA BELGIAN WORLD AIRLINES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119706 March 14, 1996 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 73592 March 15, 1996 - JOSE CUENCO BORROMEO v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94494 March 15, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DIONISIO C. LAPURA

  • G.R. No. 103695 March 15, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105819 March 15, 1996 - MARILYN L. BERNARDO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106229-30 March 15, 1996 - LEOVIGILDO ROSALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108001 March 15, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111651 March 15, 1996 - OSMALIK S. BUSTAMANTE, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115106 March 15, 1996 - ROBERTO L. DEL ROSARIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114988 March 18, 1996 - CATALINO BONTIA, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117667 March 18, 1996 - INLAND TRAILWAYS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC March 20, 1996 - QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE

  • G.R. No. 102360 March 20, 1996 - ROSITA DOMINGO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111656 March 20, 1996 - MANUEL MANAHAN, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116665 March 20, 1996 - MELQUIADES D. AZCUNA, JR. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-1-07-RTC March 21, 1996 - JDF ANOMALY IN THE RTC OF LIGAO, ALBAY

  • Adm. Matter No. 95-10-06-SCC March 27, 1996 - IN RE: DEMASIRA M. BAUTE

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1071 March 28, 1996 - ELIZABETH ASUMBRADO v. FRANCISCO R. MACUNO

  • G.R. No. 104386 March 28, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR L. LEVISTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121424 March 28, 1996 - IN RE: MAURO P. MAGTIBAY v. VICENTE VINARAO

  • G.R. No. 90215 March 29, 1996 - ERNESTO ZALDARRIAGA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94594 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO REDULOSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 96178-79 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO ESMAQUILAN

  • G.R. No. 97785 March 29, 1996 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 99259-60 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EMILIO D. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 103525 March 29, 1996 - MARCOPPER MINING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104296 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. Nos. 106083-84 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. QUINTIN T. GARRAEZ

  • G.R. No. 106600 March 29, 1996 - COSMOS BOTTLING CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109312 March 29, 1996 - PLACIDO MIRANDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 109614-15 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADRONICO GREGORIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112346 March 29, 1996 - EVELYN YONAHA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112457-58 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO CARTUANO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 112678 March 29, 1996 - EDUARDO M . ESPEJO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 112708-09 March 29, 1996 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112718 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VLADIMIR L. CANUZO

  • G.R. Nos. 113519-20 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO F. PANLILIO

  • G.R. Nos. 114263-64 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHN JENN PORRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115988 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LEO V. LIAN

  • G.R. No. 116734 March 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LARRY B. LAURENTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116792 March 29, 1996 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117055 March 29, 1996 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 117618 March 29, 1996 - VIRGINIA MALINAO v. LUISITO REYES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118509 March 29, 1996 - LIMKETKAI SONS MILLING INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118870 March 29, 1996 - NERISSA Z. PEREZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119193 March 29, 1996 - NEMENCIO GALVEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120715 March 29, 1996 - FERNANDO R. SAZON v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121527 March 29, 1996 - MARCELO L. ONGSITCO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  •  




     
     

    Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC   March 20, 1996 - QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC. March 20, 1996.]

    QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE, MTC, PONTEVEDRA, NEGROS OCC. AS TO WHO SHOULD DECIDE THE CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION IN SAID COURT.


    SYLLABUS


    ADMINISTRATIVE LAW; JUDGES; FAILURE TO DECIDE A CASE WITHIN THE PRESCRIBED PERIOD CONSTITUTES GROSS INEFFICIENCY. — Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of the Court’s business promptly and decide cases within the period specified in the Constitution, that is, three (.3) months or ninety (90) days from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, A.M. Mo. 93-2-1001, RTC; Dumlao v. Villapana, A.M. P. 93-944, September 5, 1995). We have consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the said prescribed period is inexcusable and constitutes gross inefficiency (Arnobit v. Gines, Adm. Mat. No. RTJ-92-846, 4 March 94, Minute Resolution; Ubarra v. Tecson, 134 SCRA 4; In re: Judge Jose F. Madara, 104 SCRA 245). The delay in the transcription of stenographic notes by a stenographic reporter under the judge’s supervision and control cannot be considered a valid reason for the delay in rendering judgment in a case (Balagot v. Opinion, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-90-439, 20 March 1991; Re: Letter of Mr. Octavio Kalalo, Adm. Mat. No. 937-1158-RTC, 24 May 194). A judge cannot be allowed to blame his court personnel for his own incompetence or negligence (Adriano v. Sto. Domingo, 202 SCRA 446). Precisely judges are directed to take down notes of salient portions of the hearing and proceed in the preparation of decisions without waiting for the transcribed stenographic notes. With or without the transcribed stenographic notes, the 90-day period for deciding cases should be adhered to (Balagot v. Opinion, supra; Re: Letter of Mr. Octavio Kalalo, supra). Moreover, "the requirement that cases be decided within ninety (90) days from their submission for decision is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice, for obviously justice delayed is justice denied, and delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute" (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, supra; Dumlao v. Villapana, supra).


    R E S O L U T I O N


    FRANCISCO, J.:


    When Judge Danilo M. Tenerife assumed office as Acting Judge of the MTCC, Branch II, Bacolod City on April 13, 1994, he caused a physical inventory of all cases pending in said court. He found that cases, civil and criminal, numbering 82 in all have been submitted for decision and were left undecided by his predecessor Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes who was promoted to the RTC at Bacolod City. In a letter dated May 2, 1994 addressed to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Judge Tenerife inquired as to who shall decide the cases submitted for decision during the incumbency of Judge Magallanes. In an En Banc Resolution dated June 7, 1994, the Court resolved that the said cases should be raffled among the seven (7) branches of the MTCC. Bacolod City for rendition of judgment thereon, and Judge Magallanes was directed to explain and show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his failure to decide the said cases within ninety (90) days from their respective dates of submission as required by law.

    By way of explanation, Judge Magallanes claimed that the reason why these cases were left undecided was due to the failure of the court stenographers, Mr. Leonardo Yong and Mrs. Gloria Espinosa, both of whom were frequently ill and unable to work, to complete the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN). He also averred that the number of undecided cases has already been reduced from 82 to 73 by the pairing judge with his assistance after the completion of the TSN. Expressing his "deep regret" for having left the cases undecided, Judge Magallanes requested Deputy Court Administrators Juanito Bernard and Bernardo P Abesamis to allow him to decide the said cases after the completion of the TSN so as not to burden the succeeding judge, but such request was denied.

    In light of the admission of Judge Magallanes that he failed to decide 82 (now only 73) cases within the 90-day reglementary period during his incumbency as then Presiding Judge of the MTCC, Branch II, Bacolod City, the OCA found unnecessary a formal investigation of the matter and recommended that a fine of P5,000.00 be imposed upon Judge Magallanes gross inefficiency with stern warning that a repetition of similar act(s) will be dealt with more severely.

    Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of the Court’s business promptly and decide cases within the period specified in the Constitution, that is, three (3) months or ninety (90) days from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, A.M. No. 93-2-1001, RTC; Dumlao v. Villapana, A. M. P- 93-944, September 5, 1995). We have consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the said prescribed period is inexcusable and constitutes gross inefficiency (Arnobit v. Gines, Adm. Mat. No. RTJ-92-846, 4 March 94, Minute Resolution; Ubarra v. Tecson, 134 SCRA 4; In re: Judge Jose F. Madara, 104 SCRA 245).

    The explanation of Judge Magallanes that his failure to decide the said cases within the prescribed period was due to the delay in the transcription of stenographic notes is unsatisfactory and deserves scant consideration. As previously held by this Court, the delay in the transcription of stenographic notes by a stenographic reporter under the judge’s supervision and control cannot be considered a valid reason for the delay in rendering judgment in a case (Balagot v. Opinion, Adm. Mat. No. MTJ-90-439, 20 March 1991; Re: Letter of Mr. Octavio Kalalo, Adm. Mat. No. 937-1158-RTC, 24 May 94). A judge cannot be allowed to blame his court personnel for his own incompetence or negligence (Adriano v. Sto. Domingo, 202 SCRA 446). Precisely judges are directed to take down notes of salient portions of the hearing and proceed in the preparation of decisions without waiting for the transcribed stenographic notes. With or without the transcribed stenographic notes, the 90-day period for deciding cases should be adhered to (Balagot v. Opinion, supra, Re: Letter of Mr. Octavio Kalalo, supra).

    Furthermore, this Court cannot countenance such undue delay of a judge especially now when there is an all-out effort to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the problems of congestion and delay long plaguing our courts. Moreover, "the requirement that cases be decided within ninety (90) days from their submission for decision is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice, for obviously justice delayed is justice denied, and delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute" (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, supra; Dumlao v. Villapana, supra).

    Finally, in view of the number of cases that were not decided within the prescribed period, we deem it proper that the amount of fine recommended by the OCA to be imposed on Judge Magallanes be increased. In previous cases, we considered the failure of a judge to decide even a single case within ninety (90) days gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of a fine ranging from P5,000.00 to the equivalent of one month’s salary (Castillo v. Cortes, 234 SCRA 398; Adriano v. Sto. Domingo, 202 SCRA 446; Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases in MTCC-BR. 2, Batangas City, A.M. No. 94-10-96-MTCC). In view of the foregoing circumstances and the fact that this is Judge Magallanes’ first offense, a mitigating circumstance in his favor, a fine of P10,000.00 would be reasonable.

    WHEREFORE, Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes is found guilty of GROSS INEFFICIENCY and is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (P10,000.00) directly to this Court, with a stern warning that a repetition of similar act(s) will be dealt with more severely.

    SO ORDERED.

    Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.

    Adm. Matter No. 94-5-42-MTC   March 20, 1996 - QUERY OF JUDGE DANILO M. TENERIFE




    Back to Home | Back to Main

     

    QUICK SEARCH

    cralaw

       

    cralaw



     
      Copyright © ChanRobles Publishing Company Disclaimer | E-mail Restrictions
    ChanRobles™ Virtual Law Library | chanrobles.com™
     
    RED