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
 

   
September-2000 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 117690 September 1, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALBERTO DANO

  • G.R. No. 128567 September 1, 2000 - HUERTA ALBA RESORT INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1582 September 4, 2000 - COB C. DE LA CRUZ v. RODOLFO M. SERRANO

  • G.R. No. 134763 September 4, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILFREDO RIGLOS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137785 September 4, 2000 - NAPOCOR v. VINE DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139282 September 4, 2000 - ROMEO DIEGO v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 90828 September 5, 2000 - MELVIN COLINARES, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 124077 September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ADORACION SEVILLA ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129239 September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PAUL LAPIZ

  • G.R. Nos. 131848-50 September 5, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO VILLARAZA

  • G.R. No. 139853 September 5, 2000 - FERDINAND THOMAS M. SOLLER v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1307 September 6, 2000 - MANUEL BUNYI, ET AL. v. FELIX A. CARAOS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1309 September 6, 2000 - FREDESMINDA DAYAWON v. MAXIMINO A. BADILLA

  • A.M. No. O.C.A.-00-01 September 6, 2000 - JULIETA B. NAVARRO v. RONALDO O. NAVARRO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129220 September 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNIE JAMON FAUSTINO

  • G.R. No. 131506 September 6, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODEL DIZON

  • G.R. No. 133625 September 6, 2000 - REMEDIOS F. EDRIAL ET AL. v. PEDRO QUILAT-QUILAT, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1314 September 7, 2000 - CLODUALDO C. DE JESUS v. RODOLFO D. OBNAMIA JR.

  • G.R. No. 121802 September 7, 2000 - GIL MACALINO, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126036 September 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PASCUAL BALINAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128158 September 7, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO JUAREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137431 September 7, 2000 - EDGARDO SANTOS v. LAND BANK OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 143385 September 7, 2000 - LEARNING CHILD, ET AL. v. ANNIE LAZARO, ET AL.

  • A.M. Nos. P-93-990 & A.M. No. P-94-1042 September 8, 2000 - TERESITO D. FRANCISCO v. FERNANDO CRUZ

  • G.R. No. 125167 September 8, 2000 - PRODUCERS BANK OF THE PHIL, ET AL. v. BANK OF THE PHIL. ISLANDS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137714 September 8, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS.. v. ROBERTO BANIGUID

  • A. M. No. P-99-1309 September 11, 2000 - FRANCISCO B. IBAY v. VIRGINIA G. LIM

  • G.R. No. 137857 September 11, 2000 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANCHO MAGDATO

  • G.R. No. 115054-66 September 12, 2000 - PEOPLE-OF THE PHILIPPINES v. VICENTE MENIL

  • G.R. No. 138201 September 12, 2000 - FRANCISCO BAYOCA, ET AL. v. GAUDIOSO NOGALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123111 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMY DAGAMI

  • G.R. No. 127444 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIRSO D. C. VELASCO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126402 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LITO ROSALES

  • G.R. No. 126781 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CALIXTO ZINAMPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 133918 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TIBOY ALBACIN

  • G.R. No. 133981 September 13, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HILARION BERGONIO, JR.

  • A.M. No. 00-1281-MTJ. September 14, 2000 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. SALVADOR B. MENDOZA

  • G.R. Nos. 104637-38 & 109797 September 14, 2000 - SAN MIGUEL CORPORATION, ET AL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126368 September 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY CALABROSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129208 September 14, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO ALORO

  • G.R. No. 131680 September 14, 2000 - SUBIC BAY METROPOLITAN AUTHORITY, ET AL. v. UNIVERSAL INTERNATIONAL GROUP OF TAIWAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140269-70 September 14, 2000 - PHIL. CARPET EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION ET AL. v. PHIL. CARPET MANUFACTURING CORP.

  • G.R. Nos. 143351 & 144129 September 14, 2000 - MA. AMELITA C. VILLAROSA v. HRET, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109269 September 15, 2000 - BAYER PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134266 September 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELENCIO BALI-BALITA

  • G.R. Nos. 135288-93 September 15, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS GIANAN

  • G.R. No. 130038 September 18, 2000 - ROSA LIM v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. 132603 September 18, 2000 - ELPIDIO M. SALVA, ET AL. v. ROBERTO L. MAKALINTAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134651 September 18, 2000 - VIRGILIO JIMENEZ, ET AL. v. PATRICIA, INC.

  • G.R. No. 134730 September 18, 2000 - FELIPE GARCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133373-77 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FAUSTINO CAMPOS

  • G.R. NO. 140268 September 18, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE LLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141471 September 18, 2000 - COLEGIO DE SAN JUAN DE LETRAN v. ASSOC. OF EMPLOYEES AND FACULTY OF LETRAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141787 September 18, 2000 - MANUEL H. AFIADO, ET AL. v. COMELEC

  • G.R. No. 142038 September 18, 2000 - ROLANDO E. COLUMBRES v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 136149-51 September 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WALPAN LADJAALAM

  • G.R. No. 137659 September 19, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. AMADEO TRELLES

  • G.R. No. 114348 September 20, 2000 - NATIONAL IRRIGATION ADMINISTRATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131927 September 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DAVID BANAWOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135516 September 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. NEIL DUMAGUING

  • G.R. No. 132547 September 20, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO ULEP

  • G.R. No. 117417 September 21, 2000 - MILAGROS A. CORTES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 120747 September 21, 2000 - VICENTE GOMEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128990 September 21, 2000 - INVESTORS FINANCE CORP. v. AUTOWORLD SALES CORP.

  • G.R. No. 136396 September 21, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO ZASPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136453 September 21, 2000 - PETRITA Y. BONILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS, , ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137571 September 21, 2000 - TUNG CHIN HUI v. RUFUS B. RODRIGUEZ, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1424 & MTJ-00-1316 September 25, 2000 - REYNALDO B. BELLOSILLO v. DANTE DE LA CRUZ RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 129055 September 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR BACALSO

  • G.R. No. 129296 September 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHlL. v. ABE VALDEZ

  • G.R. No. 132078 September 25, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO BERZUELA

  • G.R. No. 133465 September 25, 2000 - AMELITA DOLFO v. REGISTER OF DEEDS FOR THE PROVINCE OF CAVITE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-93-986 September 26, 2000 - EDUARDO C. DE VERA v. WILLIAM LAYAGUE

  • G.R. No. 122110 September 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERIGEL OLIVA

  • G.R. No. 135630 September 26, 2000 - INTRAMUROS TENNIS CLUB v. PHIL. TOURISM AUTHORITY (PTA)

  • G.R. Nos. 136012-16 September 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ULDARICO HONRA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 138887 September 26, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JURRIE DUBRIA

  • G.R. No. 142392 September 26, 2000 - DOMINGA A. SALMONE v. EMPLOYEES’ COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-00-1319 September 27, 2000 - ROLANDO A. SULLA v. RODOLFO C. RAMOS

  • A.M. No. RTJ-99-1447 September 27, 2000 - LEONARDO DARACAN, ET AL. v. ELI G.C. NATIVIDAD

  • G.R. No. 109760 September 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. PABLO F. EMOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122498 September 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ELMEDIO CAJARA

  • G.R. No. 133946 September 27, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. OSCAR NOGAR

  • G.R. Nos. 97138-39 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EFREN TEMANEL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132311 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MINA LIBRERO

  • G.R. No. 132725 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO QUILATAN

  • G.R. No. 136843 September 28, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO ABUNGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138054 September 28, 2000 - ROSENDO C. CARTICIANO, ET AL. v. MARIO NUVAL

  • G.R. No. 138503 September 28, 2000 - ROBERTO FERNANDEZ v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. 00-3-01-CTA September 29, 2000 - RE: JUDGE ERNESTO D. ACOSTA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1589 September 29, 2000 - JEANET N. MANIO v. JOSE ENER S. FERNANDO

  • G.R. No. 106401 September 29, 2000 - FLORENTINO ZARAGOZA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 123299 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO CARUGAL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 124671-75 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LINDA SAGAYDO

  • G.R. No. 126048 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. RODEL SAMONTE

  • G.R. No. 126254 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALDO PONCE

  • G.R. No. 129507 September 29, 2000 - CHAN SUI BI, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 130785 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. RONALD VITAL

  • G.R. No. 131492 September 29, 2000 - ROGER POSADAS, ET AL. v. OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 131813 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO ABENDAN

  • G.R. No. 133443 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134100 September 29, 2000 - PURITA ALIPIO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135382 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LOURDES GAMBOA

  • G.R. No. 135457 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PATRIARCA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135548 September 29, 2000 - FAR EAST BANK AND TRUST COMPANY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135981 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIVIC GENOSA

  • G.R. Nos. 137379-81 September 29, 2000 - PEOPLE OF THE PHILS. v. ARTURO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 139910 September 29, 2000 - PHILIPPINE COCONUT AUTHORITY v. CORONA INTERNATIONAL

  • G.R. No. 141060 September 29, 2000 - PILIPINAS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141959 September 29, 2000 - JUANITA NARZOLES, ET AL. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. MTJ-00-1307   September 6, 2000 - MANUEL BUNYI, ET AL. v. FELIX A. CARAOS

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [A.M. No. MTJ-00-1307. September 6, 2000.]

    (Formerly OCA IPI NO. 97-292-MTJ)

    MANUEL BUNYI, ANATALIA ATIENZA, ALFREDO LAYGO, ISIDRO DE GALA, REYNALDO MARQUEZ, NESTOR BAERA and OLIMPIO BUKID, Complainants, v. HON. FELIX A. CARAOS, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PURISIMA, J.:


    At bar is a Complaint dated February 17, 1997 charging Judge Felix A. Caraos with inefficiency and partiality.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Office of the Court Administrator synthesized the antecedent facts as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    Complainants, who are members of the Sangguniang Bayan of Candelaria, Quezon, allege that in 1996, the said Sangguniang Bayan decided to demolish the town’s old public market building located at the poblacion for the construction of a new one. It designated a temporary market site, about one-kilometer away from the poblacion, for use of the market vendors. It also passed a resolution prohibiting the vendors from plying their trade in the PNR compound which is not the designated temporary market site.

    However, without any Mayor’s permit, more than 300 market vendors started doing business in the PNR compound and, worse, even stopped paying daily rentals and fees to the Municipal Treasurer thus resulting in the decline in the income of the municipality. Despite the efforts exerted by the Mayor of Candelaria as well as the Provincial Governor of Quezon, the recalcitrant market vendors refused to move to the designated relocation site. Consequently, the police drove them away from the PNR compound and filed criminal cases against them before the Municipal Trial Court of Candelaria, Quezon, presided by herein respondent Judge. Instead of being intimidated by the filing of the criminal cases and despite being driven away from the PNR compound, their stalls demolished and the restricted area fenced, the said market vendors persisted in returning to the compound and even destroyed the fence; and are still doing business thereat.

    The criminal cases filed against them, though filed as early as June of 1996, are still pending trial. The accused were initially set for arraignment on December 10, 1996 and the cases were set for trial on January 28, 1997 but respondent Judge did not appear on the scheduled trial date. Moreover, respondent Judge allegedly told the herein complainants and Atty. Jeanne Macasaet that Mayor Emralino of Candelaria had committed a mistake in relocating the market vendors, thereby prejudging the case. 1

    Respondent brands the Complaint as pure harassment suit against a judge who is trying to comply with the demands of his judicial functions. He theorizes that the delay in the dispositions of subject criminal cases could partly be due to the fact that the problem became a political conflict with civic and non-governmental organizations and the Archdiocese of Lucena, trying to help settle the political rift.

    Respondent judge also claims that when the lawyers of the complainants appeared, the said lawyers wanted to set the hearings of all the cases on the same day although the said cases were filed separately.

    The parties likewise sought the disqualification of the private prosecutor, Atty. Roger E. Panotes, which move is prohibited by the Local Government Code. Further, postponements by both sides led to delays in the cases.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Lastly, respondent judge contends that complainants failed to describe with particularity his alleged partiality. According to him, when the private prosecutor went to his chambers for advice, he merely expressed his personal observation on the matter.

    In the Report 2 dated February 5, 1999, the Office of the Court Administrator determined and found the case thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . The criminal cases subject of the instant administrative complaint are for violation of a municipal ordinance which prohibits the construction of illegal stalls and to sell on public roads or the vicinity of the PNR compound (Respondent’s Comment dated July 13, 1997, p. 18 of Rollo). Being a violation of a municipal ordinance, said criminal cases are covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure (Sec. 1, B (3), 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure).

    Complainant asserts that the criminal cases were filed on June 1996 and were set for arraignment only on December 10, 1996, almost half a year from the date of their filing. Trial was supposed to start on January 28, 1997 but respondent Judge failed to appear for reasons he did not explain. Prior to the date of the herein complaint, February 17, 1997, the cases remain pending. Respondent Judge, in his comment dated July 13, 1997, did not inform the court as to the status of the cases. His defense that the delay in the disposition of the cases was due to the postponements and arguments of counsels as well as the political publicity brought about by the controversy is evidently devoid of merit.

    Respondent Judge ought to know that the said criminal cases, being covered by the Rule on Summary procedure, must be heard and tried with dispatch. The very purpose of the rule is to provide an expeditious settlement of certain conflicts covered by the Rules. The fact that one (1) year has already lapsed and the status of these cases is still unclear constitutes inefficiency on the part of respondent Judge as well as violation of the canon of judicial conduct which enjoins a judge to administer justice without delay.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Furthermore, respondent Judge’s comment on the wisdom of the relocation of vendors, innocent though it maybe, should have been avoided because of the suspicion it may create. Respondent judge should bear in mind that he is occupying an exalted position which is subject to constant scrutiny and observation. He should at all times be conscious that judges should not only be impartial but should appear impartial.

    This Office, however, is convinced that respondent Judge uttered those words without malice and only in response to a query posed by the private prosecutors.

    and acting thereupon, it recommended the imposition of a fine of P5,000.00 for the undue delay of the respondent in disposing subject criminal cases, with a warning that repetition of the same or similar act or omission will be dealt with more severely.

    On March 24, 1999, the parties were required to manifest whether they were submitting the case on the pleadings/records already submitted.

    On October 18, 1999, when a copy of the March 24, 1999 Resolution addressed to Atty. Roger E. Panotes, counsel for complainants, was returned unserved with the notation "addressee deceased", complainants were required to inform the Court of the name and address of their new counsel, within ten (10) days from notice; otherwise, the case would be deemed ripe for decision. Respondent judge was deemed to have submitted the case for decision in view of his failure to respond to the same Resolution of March 24, 1999. Until now, no response has been received from the parties.

    The finding of the Office of the Court Administrator accords with what is on record. The complaints below were for violation of a municipal ordinance and fall under Section 1 (B) (3) of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Filed as early as June 1996, the said criminal cases were only set for arraignment on December 10, 1996. Trial was to begin on January 28, 1997 but for unexplained causes, respondent judge did not appear on said date. Until the filing of the present administrative case against the respondent judge, the criminal cases in question have remained pending.

    As aptly pointed out by the Office of the Court Administrator, the purpose of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure is to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases cognizable thereunder. It was adopted to prevent undue delays in the disposition of cases. 3 Cases within the ambit of the said rule should be decided with dispatch. Failure to do so calls for disciplinary action.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Respondent judge must be reminded that Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires all judges to dispose of the business of their court promptly and to decide cases within the periods fixed by law. 4 Judges are directed to dispose of their court’s business promptly and within the periods prescribed by law and the rules. It bears stressing that delays in court undermine the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary and tarnish its image. 5 As found by the OCA,." . . The fact that one (1) year has already lapsed and the status of these cases is still unclear constitutes inefficiency on the part of respondent Judge as well as violation of the canon of judicial conduct which enjoins a judge to administer justice without delay."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The Court likewise discerns merit in the finding of the OCA that the Comment of respondent Judge on the wisdom of the relocation of vendors, innocent though it may be, should have been avoided because of the suspicion the same could arouse. Respondent judge occupies an exalted position which is subject to constant scrutiny and observation and should at all times be conscious that judges should not only be impartial but should appear impartial. 6

    A public official whose duty is to apply the law and dispense justice, whether as a judge of a lower court or tribunal or a justice of the appellate court, should not only be impartial, independent and honest but should be perceived to be impartial, independent and honest. 7

    WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Felix A. Caraos of the Municipal Trial Court of Candelaria, Quezon is found GUILTY of inefficiency and is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of P5,000.00, with a warning that a repetition of the same act or omission will be dealt with more severely.

    SO ORDERED.

    Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Report of the Office of the Court Administrator, p. 2.

    2. Ibid.

    3. Felimon R. Cuevas v. Judge Isauro M. Balderian, A.M. MTJ-00-1276, June 23, 2000.

    4. Re: Report of Justice Felipe B. Kalalo, 282 SCRA 61, 73.

    5. Ng v. Ulibari, 293 SCRA 342, 348.

    6. Supra, Footnote No. 1.

    7. Nazareno v. Almario, 268 SCRA 664.

    A.M. No. MTJ-00-1307   September 6, 2000 - MANUEL BUNYI, ET AL. v. FELIX A. CARAOS


    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