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
 

   
August-2003 Jurisprudence                 

  • A.M. No. P-02-1651 August 4, 2003 - ALEJANDRO ESTRADA v. SOLEDAD S. ESCRITOR

  • G.R. No. 138924 August 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISANTO D. MANAHAN

  • G.R. No. 139767 August 5, 2003 - FELIPE SY DUNGOG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 140868-69 August 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. NAZARIO B. BUATES

  • G.R. No. 142691 August 5, 2003 - HEIRS OF AMADO CELESTIAL v. HEIRS OF EDITHA G. CELESTIAL

  • G.R. No. 144317 August 5, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MICHAEL A. MONTE

  • G.R. No. 148848 August 5, 2003 - JACINTO RETUYA, ET. AL. v. SALIC B. DUMARPA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 152611 August 5, 2003 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. SEVERINO LISTANA, SR.

  • G.R. No. 152845 August 5, 2003 - DRIANITA BAGAOISAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL TOBACCO ADMINISTRATION

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1502 August 6, 2003 - ANASTACIO E. GAUDENCIO v. EDWARD D. PACIS

  • A.M. No. P-03-1675 August 6, 2003 - ELENA F. PACE v. RENO M. LEONARDO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-00-1545 August 6, 2003 - ANTONIO J. FINEZA v. BAYANI S. RIVERA

  • G.R. No. 133926 August 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN H. DALISAY

  • G.R. Nos. 137256-58 August 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUFINO V. ERNAS

  • G.R. No. 142740 August 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO A. TAMPOS

  • G.R. No. 142843 August 6, 2003 - OCTAVIO ALVAREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144428 August 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN M. ROSARIO

  • G.R. No. 144595 August 6, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANTE ILAGAN

  • G.R. Nos. 145383-84 August 6, 2003 - RUDY M. VILLAREÑA v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • A.M. No. P-02-1627 August 7, 2003 - CARIDAD RACCA, ET AL. v. MARIO C. BACULI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127210 August 7, 2003 - ALVIN TAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138956 August 7, 2003 - LOADSTAR SHIPPING CO., ET AL. v. ROMEO MESANO

  • G.R. No. 146341 August 7, 2003 - AQUILA LARENA v. FRUCTUOSA MAPILI, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 146382 August 7, 2003 - SYSTEMS PLUS COMPUTER COLLEGE OF CALOOCAN CITY v. LOCAL GOVERNMENT OF CALOOCAN CITY

  • G.R. No. 148557 August 7, 2003 - FELICITO ABARQUEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149075 August 7, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO P. BALLENO

  • G.R. No. 151833 August 7, 2003 - ANTONIO M. SERRANO v. GALANT MARITIME SERVICES

  • G.R. No. 153087 August 7, 2003 - BERNARD R. NALA v. JESUS M. BARROSO

  • G.R. No. 154183 August 7, 2003 - SPS. VICKY TAN TOH and LUIS TOH v. SOLID BANK CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 134241 August 11, 2003 - DAVID REYES v. JOSE LIM, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139177 August 11, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALVIN VILLANUEVA

  • A.M. No. 00-3-48-MeTC August 12, 2003 - REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT AND PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF CASES IN THE MTC OF MANILA, BR. 2

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1388 August 12, 2003 - FELISA TABORITE, ET AL. v. MANUEL S. SOLLESTA, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. P-02-1588 August 12, 2003 - RUBY M. GONZALES v. ALMA G. MARTILLANA

  • G.R. No. 120474 August 12, 2003 - ANICETO W. NAGUIT, JR. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 133796-97 August 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNANDINO M. ALAJAY

  • G.R. No. 133858 August 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERMINIANO SATORRE

  • G.R. No. 133892 August 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOVITO B. LLAVORE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137792 August 12, 2003 - SPS RICARDO ROSALES, ET AL. v. SPS ALFONSO and LOURDES SUBA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 145951 August 12, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 151908 & 152063 August 12, 2003 - SMART COMMUNICATIONS, INC. v. NATIONAL TELECOMMUNICATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 152807 August 12, 2003 - HEIRS OF LOURDES SAEZ SABANPAN, ET AL. v. ALBERTO C. COMORPOSA, ET AL.

  • A.C. No. 4650 August 14, 2003 - ROSALINA BIASCAN v. MARCIAL F. LOPEZ

  • A.M. No. 00-6-09-SC August 14, 2003 - RE: IMPOSITION OF CORRESPONDING PENALTIES FOR HABITUAL TARDINESS, ETC.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-01-1631 August 14, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JAIME F. BAUTISTA

  • G.R. No. 126627 August 14, 2003 - SMITH KLINE BECKMAN CORP. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 140023 August 14, 2003 - RUDY LAO v. STANDARD INSURANCE CO.

  • G.R. Nos. 140034-35 August 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO B. ZABALA

  • G.R. No. 144402 August 14, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO ECLERA, SR.

  • G.R. No. 156039 August 14, 2003 - KARINA CONSTANTINO-DAVID, ET AL. v. ZENAIDA D. PANGANDAMAN-GANIA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1401 August 15, 2003 - ARSENIA LARIOSA v. CONRADO B. BANDALA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115925 August 15, 2003 - SPS. RICARDO PASCUAL, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 127128 August 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROEL C. MENDIGURIN

  • G.R. No. 133841 August 15, 2003 - CAROLINA P. RAMIREZ, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 135697-98 August 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRITO C. ANDRES, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 137520-22 August 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALFREDO BAROY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138074 August 15, 2003 - CELY YANG v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138862 August 15, 2003 - MANUEL CAMACHO v. RICARDO GLORIA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 139895 August 15, 2003 - CIPRIANO M. LAZARO v. RURAL BANK OF FRANCISCO BALAGTAS (BULACAN), INC., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143258 August 15, 2003 - PHILIPPINE AIRLINES v. JOSELITO PASCUA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144618 August 15, 2003 - JORGE CHIN, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 147662-63 August 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FREDDIE FONTANILLA

  • G.R. No. 148222 August 15, 2003 - PEARL & DEAN (PHIL.) v. SHOEMART, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 151941 August 15, 2003 - CHAILEASE FINANCE CORP. v. SPS. ROMEO and MARIAFE MA

  • G.R. Nos. 153714-20 August 15, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARIO K. ESPINOSA

  • G.R. No. 154448 August 15, 2003 - PEDRITO F. REYES v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 154920 August 15, 2003 - RODNEY HEGERTY v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1744 August 18, 2003 - ROBERT M. VISBAL v. ROGELIO C. SESCON

  • A.C. No. 5299 August 19, 2003 - ISMAEL G. KHAN v. RIZALINO T. SIMBILLO

  • G.R. No. 138945 August 19, 2003 - FELIX GOCHAN AND SONS REALTY CORP., ET AL. v. HEIRS OF RAYMUNDO BABA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 144331 August 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISTITO LATASA

  • G.R. No. 145930 August 19, 2003 - C-E CONSTRUCTION CORP. v. NLRC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 147246 August 19, 2003 - ASIA LIGHTERAGE AND SHIPPING, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148877 August 19, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANGELITO B. BAGSIT

  • G.R. No. 149724 August 19, 2003 - DENR v. DENR REGION 12 EMPLOYEES

  • G.R. No. 150060 August 19, 2003 - PRIMARY STRUCTURES CORP. v. SPS. ANTHONY and SUSAN T. VALENCIA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-02-1437 August 20, 2003 - JAIME E. CONTRERAS v. EDDIE P. MONSERATE

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1473 August 20, 2003 - MYRA M. ALINTANA DE PACETE v. JOSEFINO A. GARILLO

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1745 August 20, 2003 - UNITRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 125799 August 21, 2003 - DANILO CANSINO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 148864 August 21, 2003 - SPS EDUARDO and EPIFANIA EVANGELISTA v. MERCATOR FINANCE CORP., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149495 August 21, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 150590 August 21, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. WILLIE A. ALMEDILLA

  • A.M. No. P-03-1673 August 25, 2003 - LOUIE TRINIDAD v. SOTERO S. PACLIBAR

  • G.R. No. 114172 August 25, 2003 - JUANITA P. PINEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 129368 August 25, 2003 - LAND BANK OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 129961-62 August 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. VIRGILIO CAABAY, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 137326 August 25, 2003 - ROSARIO TEXTILE MILLS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138334 August 25, 2003 - ESTELA L. CRISOSTOMO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 142856-57 August 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO NEGOSA

  • G.R. No. 151026 August 25, 2003 - SOLIDBANK CORP. v. CA, ET. AL.

  • G.R. No. 152221 August 25, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL v. JACINTO B. ALVAREZ, JR.

  • A.M. No. 01-4-133-MTC August 26, 2003 - RE: ELSIE C. REMOROZA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1492 August 26, 2003 - DOMINGO B. MANAOIS v. LAVEZARES C. LEOMO

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1504 August 26, 2003 - FELICITAS M. HIMALIN v. ISAURO M. BALDERIAN

  • G.R. Nos. 146097-98 August 26, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JUAN CARIÑAGA

  • A.C. No. 5474 August 28, 2003 - REDENTOR S. JARDIN v. DEOGRACIAS VILLAR

  • A.C. No. 5535 August 28, 2003 - SPS. STEVEN and NORA WHITSON v. JUANITO C. ATIENZA

  • A.M. No. MTJ-03-1506 August 28, 2003 - PABLO B. MABINI v. LORINDA B. TOLEDO-MUPAS

  • A.M. No. P-01-1507 August 28, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. ROLANDO SAA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1579 August 28, 2003 - LETICIA L. NICOLAS v. PRISCO L. RICAFORT

  • A.M. No. P-02-1631 August 28, 2003 - RENATO C. BALIBAG v. HERMITO C. MONICA

  • A.M. No. P-02-1659 August 28, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. LIZA MARIA E. SIRIOS

  • A.M. No. P-03-1710 August 28, 2003 - EDGARDO ANGELES v. BALTAZAR P. EDUARTE

  • A.M. No. RTJ-02-1676 August 28, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. GUILLERMO R. ANDAYA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-03-1786 August 28, 2003 - ALFREDO Y. CHU v. CAMILO E. TAMIN

  • G.R. No. 134604 August 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERNESTO HUGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 138295 August 28, 2003 - PILIPINO TELEPHONE CORP. v. NTC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 143826 August 28, 2003 - IGNACIA AGUILAR-REYES v. SPS. CIPRIANO and FLORENTINA MIJARES

  • G.R. No. 146501 August 28, 2003 - FLORDELIZA RIVERA v. GREGORIA SANTIAGO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 149810 August 28, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CRISPIN T. RUALES

  • G.R. No. 154049 August 28, 2003 - RAMON P. JACINTO, ET AL. v. FIRST WOMEN’S CREDIT CORP.

  • G.R. No. 133733 August 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO AQUINDE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 136299 August 29, 2003 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ZOILO MAGALLANES

  • G.R. No. 137010 August 29, 2003 - ARK TRAVEL EXPRESS v. Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Makati, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 142383 August 29, 2003 - ASIAN TRANSMISSION CORP. v. CANLUBANG SUGAR ESTATES

  •  





     
     

    A.M. No. RTJ-03-1745   August 20, 2003 - UNITRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR., ET AL.

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.M. No. RTJ-03-1745. August 20, 2003.]

    (Formerly OCA IPI No. 01-1142-RTJ)

    UNITRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK (Represented by Atty. Enrico A. Benito), Complainant, v. JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR., in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 253, Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, and MA. EDITHA CAUNAN, in her capacity as Officer In Charge (OIC), Respondents.

    R E S O L U T I O N


    QUISUMBING, J.:


    On March 24, 2000, Unitrust Development Bank (UDB) filed the instant complaint against respondents Judge Jose F. Caoibes Jr., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 253, and Court Stenographer Ma. Editha Caunan, in her capacity as Officer-In-Charge, for violation of Section 16, 1 Article III of the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. UDB alleged that the respondents are guilty of delay in the resolution of its motion to dismiss 2 filed in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050 entitled "Olivia Garrido v. Unitrust Development Bank" and its ex parte petition 3 for the issuance of a writ of possession pending before the same court and docketed as LRC Case No. LP-98-0350.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Herein complainant UDB was the defendant in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050, a case for annulment of certificate of sale with prayer for preliminary injunction and temporary restraining order pending before Branch 253 of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City presided by the respondent judge. On August 12, 1998, UDB filed a motion to dismiss said case for the failure of the plaintiff, Olivia Garrido, to prosecute the case without justifiable reason for a period of four (4) months. At the hearing of the motion on August 21, 1998, Garrido moved for an extension of time to file her comment or opposition to the motion. Respondent judge granted the request and gave Garrido seven (7) days within which to file a comment or opposition to the motion, after which, the motion would be deemed submitted for resolution. 4

    On August 27, 1998, Garrido filed her Opposition/Comments to the motion and prayed, additionally; that the case be set for pre-trial. On September 1, 1998, UDB filed its reply. 5

    Despite numerous follow-ups either by telephone calls or personal visits to the court, respondent judge failed to resolve the motion to dismiss. UDB even filed three (3) urgent motions for the early resolution of its motion to dismiss on November 11, 1998, 6 May 12, 1999, 7 and September 2, 1999. 8

    On January 18, 2000, 9 respondent judge resolved said motion. On March 23, 2000, a copy of the court’s resolution was mailed to UDB and received by the latter on March 29, 2000, or five (5) days after the instant administrative complaint was filed. UDB then filed a manifestation with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) stating that it received a copy of the Order dated January 18, 2000 resolving the motion to dismiss and that it was no longer interested in pursuing the administrative case against respondent judge.

    It also appears that sometime in December 1998, UDB filed an ex parte petition entitled Re: "Ex-Parte Petition for the Issuance of a Writ of Possession" 10 before the same court and docketed as LRC Case No. LP-98-0350. UDB alleged that it was only on September 14, 1999, or after the lapse of more than eight (8) months, that the respondent judge set the petition for initial hearing in violation of the 90-day rule under Section 15 (1), 11 Article VIII of the Constitution.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In an Indorsement 12 dated March 15, 2001, then Acting Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño required respondent judge to file his comment. He asked for several extensions and eventually filed his comment on June 15, 2001. UDB reiterated its withdrawal of the administrative case in a Manifestation 13 dated May 5, 2001.

    In his comment, respondent judge alleged that the instant complaint came as a surprise to him because he thought that everything was in order since the subject motion to dismiss had already been resolved on January 18, 2000, or two (2) months prior to the filing of the instant complaint on March 24, 2000.

    Respondent judge admitted that there was a delay in resolving the subject motion although he blamed, and sought to transfer the fault, to Officer-In-Charge and Legal Researcher Laureana C. Buenaventura for her failure to adopt a system of proper records management and for misplacing the records of Civil Case No. LP-98-0050. Respondent judge explained that because Buenaventura abandoned her office on May 3, 1999, the records were found only after the newly designated Officer-In-Charge, the respondent Editha B. Caunan, conducted a physical inventory of cases. Since the records of Civil Case No. LP-98-0050 were misplaced, respondent judge claimed there was absolutely no way he could have acted on the motion even considering the urgent motions for resolution filed by UDB. Finally, respondent judge averred that upon receipt of the record, he immediately resolved the pending motion to dismiss on January 18, 2000.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    With respect to the alleged delay in resolving UDB’s ex parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession, respondent judge asserted that the late setting of the hearing was UDB’s fault since it took UDB more than eight (8) months to set the petition for hearing. Respondent judge claimed that after the initial hearing on September 14, 1999, he immediately resolved the petition and issued the writ of possession on November 25, 1999, or two (2) months after the hearing. Hence, there was clearly no delay.

    In two (2) separate resolutions dated September 16, 2002, 14 this Court adopted the recommendation of Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., to dismiss the administrative complaint against respondent court stenographer Ma. Editha Caunan for lack of merit. The administrative matter against the respondent judge was referred to the OCA for re-evaluation, report and recommendation.

    In its report, the OCA, after finding that the respondent judge was remiss in his duty to resolve the motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050 within the 90-day reglementary period, recommended that the respondent judge be fined P2,000 for his infraction. 15

    Except as to the recommended penalty, this Court agrees with the findings of the OCA.

    Evidence clearly supports UDB’s allegation that there was undue delay in the resolution of its motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050. There is no doubt that said motion was considered submitted for resolution on September 1, 1998 when UDB filed a reply to the plaintiff’s opposition, the said reply being the last pleading submitted. Under Section 15(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution, respondent judge had 90 days or until November 30, 1998, to resolve said motion. However, respondent judge resolved the motion only on January 18, 2000 and promulgated the order granting the motion only on March 23, 2000, when copies of said order were mailed to the parties.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw library

    Respondent judge’s explanation that the delay was occasioned by Ms. Buenaventura’s inefficiency and her having misplaced the records of the case could not free him from administrative liability, even considering that the responsibility of safekeeping the record is primarily vested upon the Branch Clerk of Court or the Officer-In-Charge. As a judge, he has the bounden duty to maintain proper monitoring of cases submitted for his decision or resolution. A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or resolution and is expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may act on them promptly. 16 It is his duty to take note of the cases submitted for his decision or resolution and see to it that they are decided within the prescribed period. 17 He cannot hide behind the inefficiency or irresponsibility of his court personnel because the latter are not the guardians of his responsibilities. 18 Indeed, Rule 3.09 19 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires respondent judge to organize and supervise the court personnel for prompt and efficient dispatch of business. The fact that Ms. Buenaventura misplaced the records and was inefficient only goes to prove that the respondent judge failed in his duty to properly supervise court personnel.

    It is of no moment that UDB filed a manifestation before the OCA stating its intention to withdraw the complaint for alleged utter lack of interest. 20 The withdrawal of the case by the complainant, or the filing of an affidavit of desistance or the complainant’s loss of interest does not necessarily cause the dismissal thereof. 21 To condition administrative actions upon the will of every complainant, who may, for one reason or another, condone a detestable act, is to strip the Supreme Court of its supervisory power to discipline erring members of the Judiciary. 22 Disciplinary proceedings of this nature involve no private interest and afford no redress for private grievance. They are undertaken and prosecuted solely for the public welfare, i.e., to maintain the faith and confidence of the people in the government and its agencies and instrumentalities.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Notably, despite its intention to withdraw the case, UDB emphasized the respondent judge’s delay in resolving the subject motion in its Manifestation 23 dated June 22, 2001. This Court, therefore, does not hesitate to hold respondent judge liable for undue delay in the resolution of the motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050.

    With respect to the respondent’s alleged delay in resolving LRC Case No. LP-98-0350, we are not convinced that the respondent judge had delayed resolving said petition. The complaint itself states that it was only on August 31, 1998 that UDB filed a motion to set the petition for initial hearing. It is, therefore, clear that the delay is wholly of UDB’s doing. Having resolved the petition within two (2) months from the initial hearing, respondent judge is not guilty of any delay.

    The lengthy delay in the resolution of UDB’s motion to dismiss, in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050, is another matter altogether. It cannot but raise speculations about respondent judge’s impartiality. More than once has this Court reiterated that the conduct and behavior of every official and employee of an agency involved in the administration of justice, from the presiding judge to the most junior clerk, should be circumscribed with the heavy burden of responsibility. 24 This is so because the image of a court of justice is necessarily mirrored in the conduct, official or otherwise, of the men and women who work thereat.25cralaw:red

    This Court cannot countenance any act or omission of those involved in the administration of justice that would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. 26

    Section 9, 27 Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides that undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious offense punishable, under Section 11 (B) 28 of the same rule, by (a) dismissal from the service, (b) suspension from the office for more than three (3) months but not exceeding six (6) months, or (c) the imposition of a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00. The recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator that the respondent judge be penalized by a fine of P2,000 is, therefore, inappropriate.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    The record in the Docket and Clearance Division, OCA, shows that respondent judge was previously penalized in two cases: (1) A.M. No. RTJ-99-1431 entitled "Judge Florentino Alumbres v. Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr." for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct with a FINE of P20,000.00 with warning; 29 and (2) A.M. No. RTJ-01-1620 entitled "Adriano Monterola v. Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr." for Gross Ignorance of Procedural Law and Unreasonable Delay in the issuance of an Order for the execution of Judgment in Civil Case No. LP 98-0141 with a FINE of P30,000.00 with stern warning. 30 Now, in this latest case, the penalty of P40,000.00 FINE ought to be the proper sanction.

    WHEREFORE, respondent JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES JR., Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas City, Branch 253, is hereby declared GUILTY of delay in resolving the complainant’s motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050. The penalty of FINE in the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos is hereby imposed upon him with a WARNING that a repetition of a similar act in the future will be dealt with even more severely.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Let a copy of this resolution be spread on the personal records of the Respondent.

    SO ORDERED.

    Bellosillo (Acting C .J.), Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio Morales and Callejo, Sr., JJ., on official leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.

    2. Rollo, pp. 59–60.

    3. Id. at 79–83.

    4. Id. at 103–106.

    5. Id. at 52–56.

    6. Id. at 59–61.

    7. Id. at 63–65.

    8. Id. at 66–67.

    9. Id. at 103–105.

    10. Id. at 79–85.

    11. 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


    12. Rollo, p. 107.

    13. Id. at 111–112.

    14. Id. at 148–149, 152.

    15. Id. at 153–157.

    16. Mamamayan ng Zapote 1, Bacoor, Cavite v. Balderian, 333 Phil. 190, 197 (1996).

    17. Id. at 196–197; Secretary of Justice v. Legaspi, A.C. No. 269-J, 10 September 1981, 107 SCRA 233, 245.

    18. See Secretary of Justice v. Legaspi, supra.

    19. Rule 3.09. — A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.

    20. Rollo, pp. 125–126.

    21. Anguluan v. Taguba, A.M. No. 1402-MJ, 14 September 1979, 93 SCRA 179, 185.

    22. Ibid.

    23. Rollo, pp. 129–132.

    24. Reyes v. Vidor, A.M. No. P-02-1552, 3 December 2002, p. 5; Civil Service Commission v. Sta. Ana, A.M. No. OCA-01-5, 1 August 2002, pp. 8–9; Dino v. Dumukmat, A.M. No. P-00-1380, 29 June 2001, 360 SCRA 317, 321 citing Musni v. Morales, A.M. No. P-99-1340, 23 September 1999, 315 SCRA 85, 91; Office of the Court Administrator v. Galo, A.M. No. P-93-989, 21

    September 1999, 314 SCRA 705, 711; Re: Absence Without Official Leave of Jacoba, 362 Phil. 486, 489 (1999).

    25. Reyes v. Vidor, ibid.

    26. Office of the Court Administrator v. Cabe, A.M. No. P-96-1185, 26 June 2000, 334 SCRA 348, 361; Roque v. Mateo, 328 Phil. 1096, 1105 (1996); Re: Report on Habitual Absenteeism of Sabido, 312 Phil. 513, 517 (1995).

    27. SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. — Less serious charges include:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;

    2. Frequent and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness;

    3. Unauthorized practice of law;

    4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;

    5. Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law;

    6. Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and

    7. Simple Misconduct.

    28. SEC. 11(B). If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

    1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or

    2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

    29. Rollo, p. 158.

    30. Id. at 159.

    A.M. No. RTJ-03-1745   August 20, 2003 - UNITRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK v. JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR., ET AL.


    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