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
 

   
April-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.C. No. 4984 April 1, 2003 - JULITO D. VITRIOLO, ET AL. v. FELINA DASIG

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1485 April 1, 2003 - FIDEL ISIP, JR. v. VALENTINO B. NOGOY

  • A.M. Nos. P-02-1620, P-02-1621, P-02-1622 & P-96-1194 April 1, 2003 - MELINDA F. PIMENTEL v. PERPETUA SOCORRO M. DE LEOZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1643 April 1, 2003 - DIMAS ABALDE v. ANTONIO ROQUE

  • G.R. No. 137782 April 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTURO R. NICOLAS

  • G.R. No. 138470 April 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARTEMIO GARCIA

  • G.R. No. 143084 April 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE TORELLOS

  • G.R. No. 148635 April 1, 2003 - MARILLA MAYANG CAVILE, ET AL. v. HEIRS OF CLARITA CAVILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149453 April 1, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL. v. PANFILO M. LACSON

  • A.M. No. 01-1-13-RTC April 2, 2003 - RE: Report on the Examination of the Cash and Accounts

  • A.M. No. P-02-1545 April 2, 2003 - ZENAIDA C. GUTIERREZ, ET AL. v. RODOLFO V. QUITALIG

  • G.R. No. 139412 April 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONALD CASTILLANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 149028-30 April 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO CABALLERO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149893 April 2, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MELCHOR RABAGO

  • A.C. No. 4958 April 3, 2003 - FIDEL D. AQUINO v. OSCAR MANESE

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1436 April 3, 2003 - JAIME C. TARAN v. JOSE S. JACINTO

  • A.M. No. P-02-1595 April 3, 2003 - TIMOTEO M. CASANOVA, JR. v. FELIZARDO P. CAJAYON

  • A.M. No. P-02-1650 April 3, 2003 - ZENAIDA REYES-MACABEO v. FLORITO EDUARDO V. VALLE

  • G.R. Nos. 111098-99 April 3, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PIO BISO

  • G.R. Nos. 143976 & 145846 April 3, 2003 - SPS. OSCAR and HAYDEE BADILLO v. ARTURO G. TAYAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144444 April 3, 2003 - STATE INVESTMENT TRUST v. DELTA MOTORS CORP.

  • G.R. No. 150978 April 3, 2003 - POWTON CONGLOMERATE v. JOHNNY AGCOLICOL

  • G.R. No. 155875 April 3, 2003 - AGAPITO CRUZ FIEL, ET AL. v. KRIS SECURITY SYSTEMS, INC., ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1482 April 4, 2003 - ILUMINADA SANTILLAN VDA. DE NEPOMUCENO v. NICASIO V. BARTOLOME

  • A.M. No. P-03-1690, MTJ-01-1363 & 01-12-02-SC April 4, 2003 - ESTRELLITA M. PAAS v. EDGAR E. ALMARVEZ

  • G.R. No. 108405 April 4, 2003 - JAIME D. VIERNES, ET AL. v. N;RC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117020 April 4, 2003 - VIRON TRANSPORTATION CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125938 April 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOEL JANSON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140756 April 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN GONZALES ESCOTE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141631 April 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERDINAND FRANCISCO

  • G.R. No. 143135 April 4, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. DAMAYAN NG PUROK 14, INC.

  • G.R. No. 143779 April 4, 2003 - FRANCISCA L. MARQUEZ v. SIMEON BALDOZ

  • G.R. Nos. 145309-10 April 4, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO FLORES

  • G.R. Nos. 144476 & 144629 April 8, 2003 - ONG YONG, ET AL. v. DAVID. S. TIU, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149022 April 8, 2003 - CARMENCITA D. CORONEL v. ANIANO A. DESIERTO, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1428 April 9, 2003 - ARFRAN L. QUIÑONES v. FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1580 April 9, 2003 - RENE ESPINA v. JUAN A. GATO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1630 April 9, 2003 - HEINZ R. HECK v. ANTHONY E. SANTOS

  • G.R. No. 119255 April 9, 2003 - TOMAS K. CHUA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126968 April 9, 2003 - RICARDO BALUNUECO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128568 April 9, 2003 - SPS. REYNALDO and ESMERALDA ALCARAZ v. PEDRO M. TANGGA-AN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 132371 April 9, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO Q. SIMBAHON

  • G.R. No. 133003 April 9, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LAWRENCE MACAPANPAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141258 April 9, 2003 - TOMASA SARMIENTO v. SPS. LUIS & ROSE SUN-CABRIDO ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 141314 & 141369 April 9, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. REPRESENTED BY ENERGY REGULATORY BOARD v. MERALCO

  • G.R. No. 143004 April 9, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE CLIDORO

  • G.R. No. 143432 April 9, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. TERENCIO L. FUNESTO

  • G.R. No. 146034 April 9, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LASTIDE A. SUBE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146815 April 9, 2003 - HEIRS OF PEDRO, ET AL. v. STERLING TECHNOPARK III ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147468 April 9, 2003 - SPS. EDUARDO & JOSEFINA DOMINGO v. LILIA MONTINOLA ROCES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147745 April 9, 2003 - MARIA BUENA OBRA v. SOCIAL SECURITY SYSTEM

  • G.R. No. 148727 April 9, 2003 - SPS. HERMOGENA AND JOSE ENGRESO v. NESTORIA DE LA CRUZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149038 April 9, 2003 - PHIL. AMERICAN GENERAL INSURANCE COMPANY v. PKS SHIPPING COMPANY

  • G.R. No. 149110 April 9, 2003 - NATIONAL POWER CORPORATION v. CITY OF CABANATUAN

  • G.R. No. 149422 April 10, 2003 - DEPARTMENT OF AGRARIAN REFORM v. APEX INVESTMENT AND FINANCING CORP.

  • G.R. No. 149578 April 10, 2003 - EVELYN TOLOSA v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143540 April 11, 2003 - JOEL G. MIRANDA v. ANTONIO C. CARREON, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148138 April 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOHNNY VIAJEDOR

  • A.M. No. P-02-1645 April 21, 2003 - GILBERT HOWARD M. ATIENZA v. JOSEPHINE V. DINAMPO

  • A.M. No. P-03-1695 April 21, 2003 - ARTEMIO H. QUIDILLA v. JUNAR G. ARMIDA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1756 April 22, 2003 - AURORA S. GONZALES v. VICENTE A. HIDALGO

  • G.R. No. 127745 April 22, 2003 - FELICITO G. SANSON, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129163 April 22, 2003 - VOLTAIRE ARBOLARIO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 138650-58 April 22, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. IGNACIO SINORO

  • G.R. No. 140707 April 22, 2003 - NORGENE POTENCIANO, ET AL. v. DWIGHT "IKE" B. REYNOSO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146942 April 22, 2003 - CORAZON G. RUIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152329 April 22, 2003 - ALEJANDRO ROQUERO v. PHILIPPINE AIRLINES, INC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1763 April 24, 2003 - JOSE B. TIONGCO v. FLORENTINO P. PEDRONIO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1770 April 24, 2003 - MELISSA E. MAÑO v. CAESAR A. CASANOVA

  • G.R. No. 123968 April 24, 2003 - URSULINA GANUELAS, ET AL. v. ROBERT T. CAWED, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137182 April 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ABDILA L. SILONGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137458-59 April 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JESUS G. BATOCTOY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137601 April 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WINCHESTER ABUT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139230 April 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MANUEL DANIELA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143672 April 24, 2003 - COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE v. GENERAL FOODS (PHILS.), INC.

  • G.R. No. 145915 April 24, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VILMA Z. ALMENDRAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147038 April 24, 2003 - RICHARD TEH v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-01-1370 April 25, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO

  • G.R. No. 118749 April 25, 2003 - SPS LORENZO and LORENZA FRANCISCO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141187 April 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONNIE A. MACTAL

  • A.C. No. 5225 April 29, 2003 - SPS. WILFREDO & LYDIA BOYBOY v. VICTORIANO R. YABUT, JR.

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1453 April 29, 2003 - EDITHA PALMA GIL v. FRANCISCO H. LOPEZ, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1615 April 29, 2003 - PEDRO MAGNAYE v. ERIBERTO R. SABAS

  • G.R. No. 119858 April 29, 2003 - EDWARD C. ONG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 122363 April 29, 2003 - VICTOR G. VALENCIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127002 April 29, 2003 - JEREMIAS L. DOLINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 135394 April 29, 2003 - JOSE V. DELA RAMA v. FRANCISCO G. MENDIOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139841 April 29, 2003 - EMILIO C. VILLAROSA v. DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141518 April 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CLARENCE ASTUDILLO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142015 April 29, 2003 - RURAL BANK OF STA. IGNACIA v. PELAGIA DIMATULAC

  • G.R. No. 147230 April 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO R. REMERATA

  • G.R. No. 150656 April 29, 2003 - MARGARITA ROMUALDEZ-LICAROS v. ABELARDO B. LICAROS

  • A.C. No. 4724 April 30, 2003 - GORETTI ONG v. JOEL M. GRIJALDO

  • A.M. No. CA-99-9-P April 30, 2003 - MAGTANGGOL GABRIEL v. VIRGINIA C. ABELLA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-00-1445 April 30, 2003 - MEDARDO M. PADUA v. IRENEO S. PAZ

  • A.M. No. P-02-1599 April 30, 2003 - LEANDRO T. LOYAO v. MAMERTO J. CAUBE, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1600 April 30, 2003 - DOMINADOR. AREVALO, ET AL. v. EDGARDO S. LORIA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-03-1696 April 30, 2003 - CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION v. ZENAIDA T. STA. ANA

  • A.M. RTJ No. 03-1761 April 30, 2003 - JOSE B. CUSTODIO v. JESUS V. QUITAIN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1775 April 30, 2003 - ISAGANI A. CRUZ v. PHILBERT I. ITURRALDE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1779 April 30, 2003 - JOVENCITO R. ZUÑO, ET AL. v. ARNULFO G. CABREDO

  • G.R. Nos. 107789 & 147214 April 30, 2003 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116326 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT LEE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 121211 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RONETO DEGAMO

  • G.R. No. 121637 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO GREFALDIA

  • G.R. No. 125761 April 30, 2003 - SALVADOR P. MALBAROSA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126568 April 30, 2003 - QUIRINO GONZALES LOGGING CONCESSIONAIRE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 126911 April 30, 2003 - PHIL. DEPOSIT INSURANCE CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127141 April 30, 2003 - SPS. EMMANUEL and MELANIE LANTIN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128378 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERT GOMEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 128512 & 128963 April 30, 2003 - DARIO P. BELONGHILOT v. RTC OF ZAMBOANGA DEL NORTE

  • G.R. No. 129090 April 30, 2003 - RICARDO B. GONZALES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129895 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO C. DALAG

  • G.R. No. 134940 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CATALINO MELENDRES

  • G.R. No. 138266 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO CABRERA, JR.

  • G.R. No. 139876 April 30, 2003 - WILLIAM TIU and/or THE ROUGH RIDERS v. JULIO PASAOL, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140753 April 30, 2003 - BENJAMIN S. SANTOS v. ELENA VELARDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 141375 April 30, 2003 - MUNICIPALITY OF KANANGA v. FORTUNITO L. MADRONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142435 April 30, 2003 - ESTELITA BURGOS LIPAT, ET AL. v. PACIFIC BANKING CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142591 April 30, 2003 - JOSEPH CHAN, ET AL. v. BONIFACIO S. MACEDA

  • G.R. Nos. 144445-47 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GENARO BIONG

  • G.R. No. 146099 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JIMMEL SANIDAD, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146481 April 30, 2003 - ARTURO G. RIMORIN, SR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. Nos. 146685-86 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENJAMIN M. HILET

  • G.R. Nos. 146862-64 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GAUDENCIO D. UMBAÑA

  • G.R. No. 146886 April 30, 2003 - DEVORAH E. BARDILLON v. BARANGAY MASILI of Calamba, Laguna

  • G.R. No. 146923 April 30, 2003 - BANK OF THE PHILIPPINE ISLANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147033 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO UMAYAM

  • G.R. Nos. 148394-96 April 30, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGER ELIARDA

  • G.R. No. 150179 April 30, 2003 - HEIRS OF WILLIAM SEVILLA, ET AL. v. LEOPOLDO SEVILLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 150820-21 April 30, 2003 - SPS. ANTONIO and GENOVEVA BALANON-ANICETE, ET AL. v. PEDRO BALANON

  • G.R. No. 154037 April 30, 2003 - IN THE MATTER OF THE PETITION FOR HABEAS CORPUS OF BENJAMIN VERGARA, ET AL.

  •  





     
     

    A.M. RTJ No. 03-1761   April 30, 2003 - JOSE B. CUSTODIO v. JESUS V. QUITAIN

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    THIRD DIVISION

    [A.M. RTJ No. 03-1761. April 30, 2003.]

    JOSE B. CUSTODIO, Complainant, v. Judge JESUS V. QUITAIN, Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 15, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PANGANIBAN, J.:


    Unreasonable delays in resolving pending cases, motions or other incidents diminish public trust in the judiciary. They constitute less serious charges that are administratively sanctionable under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The Case and the Facts


    This administrative case stems from a Complaint 1 filed by Jose B. Custodio with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on August 23, 2000. In the Complaint, Judge Jesus V. Quitain of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City (Branch 15) was charged with delay in resolving incidents relative to Criminal Case No. 37921-96 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Jose B. Custodio."cralaw virtua1aw library

    The factual antecedents are summarized by the OCA in this wise:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "Petitioner, who is the accused in the aforecited criminal case, alleges that from the time the case of rape was filed against him in late 1996, he filed several motions for inhibitions which were all denied by respondent judge despite the very patent and serious grounds. On 28 January 1999, he filed a final motion for compulsory inhibition dated 26 January 1999. This was likewise denied per Order dated 11 June 1999 or after almost five (5) months from filing. In connection with the said denial of the final motion for inhibition, he filed the following, to wit: a) motion for reconsideration/clarification dated 16 July 1999; b) urgent motion to resolve pending motion for reconsideration/clarification dated 10 August 1999; c) supplemental grounds for pending final motion for inhibition dated 26 January 1999; d) motion to resolve inhibition incident with additional grounds dated 17 January 2000; and e) second motion to resolve long pending motion for inhibition with additional newly discovered ground dated 5 April 2000.

    "Petitioner claims that for about 1 year and 7 months respondent unlawfully, unjustly, wrongfully, deliberately and maliciously failed to render resolution of the said motion for inhibition in violation of the constitutional right of the accused to speedy trial and despite respondent having issued two orders dated 19 November 1999 and 28 January 2000 declaring said motion for inhibition as submitted for resolution." 2

    In his Comment 3 dated November 10, 2000, respondent denied having maliciously delayed the resolution of complainant’s Motion for Inhibition. 4 He explained thus:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    ". . . . The prosecution filed on February 8, 1999 a Motion to Strike Out Final Motion for Inhibition ten days after the said motion was filed. On February 9, 1999 the accused testified but the trial was stopped because the defense objected to the participation of the private prosecutor. The Court overruled the objection and the accused was given up to March 5, 1999 to file his Memorandum of Authorities regarding the inhibition.

    "On February 26, 1999, Accused filed his Memorandum. The public prosecutor then filed a motion that it be given up to March 18, 1999 to answer the motion. The Court gave the prosecution up to March 23, 1999 to file its pleading.

    "On March 24, 1999, the prosecutor submitted its Comment. [O]n March 26, 1999, the accused filed a Motion to File Reply to prosecution’s [C]omment and asked that it be given fifteen (15) days from March 24, 1999 to file a rejoinder which the Court granted the same day. However, on April 8, 1999, the accused filed a second extension of time to file a reply to the prosecution’s comment. This was granted and accused was given ten (10) days or up to April 18, 1999 to file his reply. On April 20, 1999, the accused submitted his [R]eply to the prosecution’s [C]omment." 5

    Finally, respondent claimed that his Order 6 denying complainant’s Final Motion for Inhibition was rendered only 52 days after the last pleading was filed, and not after 1 year and 7 months as alleged by complainant.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Findings and Recommendation of the OCA

    In its Report 7 dated August 21, 2002, the OCA noted that complainant had filed a Petition for Mandamus before the Court of Appeals (CA). He had sought therein to compel respondent to act on the pending Motion for Reconsideration 8 of the Order denying the Final Motion for Inhibition. In its October 15, 2001 Decision, 9 the CA 10 ruled in favor of complainant. We reproduce the pertinent findings:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "The motion for reconsideration of RESPONDENT JUDGE’s June 11, 1999 Order, denying CUSTODIO’s motion for inhibition, had been submitted for resolution as early as July 23, 1999. To date, RESPONDENT JUDGE has not resolved said pending incident, in violation of the clear mandate of Section 4, Rule 37 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure that ‘a motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be resolved within thirty (30) days from the time it is submitted for resolution.’ It bears noting that no motion for extension of the foregoing period was sought by RESPONDENT JUDGE with the Supreme Court, and despite CUSTODIO’s repeated motion for resolution, his motion for reconsideration has remained pending and unresolved. . . .." 11

    Citing the above CA pronouncements, the OCA recommended that respondent be fined P5,000, with a warning that the commission of the same or a similar act in the future would be dealt with more severely.

    The Court’s Ruling


    We agree with the OCA’s finding that respondent judge is guilty of unreasonable delay. However, we modify the penalty in accordance with Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

    Respondent’s Administrative Liability

    The administration of justice is a sacred task. Verily, judges are expected to be embodiments of competence, integrity, and independence, 12 who will administer justice impartially and without delay. 13 Anything less than these exacting standards would undermine the people’s faith in the judiciary and bring it into disrepute.

    In the present case, complainant alleges that respondent failed to act on the Final Motion for Inhibition from the time it was submitted on January 28, 1999 up to the time this case was filed on August 23, 2000. However, the records show that respondent already ruled on the Final Motion for Inhibition when he denied it on June 11, 1999.

    What remained pending, though, was the Motion for Reconsideration (MR) of the Order 14 of denial, which complainant had filed on July 19, 1999. Respondent issued two Orders dated November 19, 1999 15 and January 28, 2000, 16 declaring that the MR was deemed submitted for decision. However, he failed to act on it, until the appellate court granted complainant’s Petition for Mandamus on October 15, 2001.

    Delay in the administration of justice is a common cause of complaints against the judiciary. It is the sworn duty of judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to decide cases within the required periods. 17 If, for good and valid reasons, they cannot resolve pending cases, motions or other incidents within the reglementary period, we stress that they should file a request for extension with this Court. Otherwise, they shall be sanctioned under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

    Moreover, the immediate resolution of the pending Motion in Criminal Case No. 37921-96 was essential to the continuation of the trial of the case. Respondent should have realized that delay in deciding complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration would interrupt the course of the trial and diminish the parties’ right to a speedy disposition of their case. Such delay was therefore unwarranted, as it would only inflame distrust and discontent in the judiciary as a whole.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Rule 37 of the Rules of Court

    Not Applicable

    Contrary to the justification given by the OCA and the CA, Section 4 of Rule 37 of the Rules of Court 18 does not provide for the determination of the period of time within which the subject Motion for Reconsideration must be resolved.

    Rule 37 pertains to the filing of a motion for a new trial or of a motion for reconsideration of a judgment or final order that has decided a case on its merits. On the other hand, an order denying a motion for inhibition, which is governed by Rule 41, is merely interlocutory and is not a judgment, as the case still stands for regular trial. Therefore, the period provided in Section 4 does not apply.

    There is no specific rule providing for a definite period of time within which to resolve a motion for reconsideration of an order denying inhibition. However, we emphasize that all presiding judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts 19 within the 90-day period provided in the Constitution, 20 unless the law requires a lesser period.

    Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or an order or in transmitting the records of a case constitutes a less serious charge. It is penalized with suspension without pay for not less than 1 month or more than 3 months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.

    WHEREFORE, Respondent Judge Jesus V. Quitain of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Davao City (Branch 15) is found guilty of undue delay in resolving a motion, for which he is FINED P10,100, with a WARNING that the commission of the same or a similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Puno, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Carpio Morales, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Rollo, pp. 1–9. The Complaint was erroneously entitled "Petition."cralaw virtua1aw library

    2. OCA Report dated August 21, 2002, p. 1; rollo, p. 296.

    3. Rollo, pp. 74–75.

    4. Annex "B" of Complaint; rollo, pp. 35–44.

    5. Respondent’s Comment, p. 2; id., p. 75.

    6. Rollo, p. 114.

    7. Id., pp. 296–299. Signed by Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock and approved by Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco Jr.

    8. Annex "B-2" of Complaint; rollo, pp. 49–51.

    9. Id., pp. 283–295.

    10. Special Third Division. Penned by Justice Eriberto U. Rosario Jr. and concurred in by Justices Buenaventura J. Guerrero (Division chairman) and Bienvenido L. Reyes (member).

    11. CA Decision, pp. 7–8; rollo, pp. 289–290.

    12. Canon 1 of Rule 1.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    13. Id., Rule 1.02.

    14. Rollo, pp. 49–51.

    15. Id., p. 70.

    16. Id., p. 71.

    17. Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

    18. "SECTION 4. Resolution of motion. — A motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be resolved within thirty (30) days from the time it is submitted for resolution."cralaw virtua1aw library

    19. Paragraph 6.1 of Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988.

    20. Under Article VIII, Section 15:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

    "SEC. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

    x       x       x

    A.M. RTJ No. 03-1761   April 30, 2003 - JOSE B. CUSTODIO v. JESUS V. QUITAIN


    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