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. MTJ-03-1504   August 26, 2003 - FELICITAS M. HIMALIN v. ISAURO M. BALDERIAN

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    EN BANC

    [A.M. No. MTJ-03-1504. August 26, 2003.]

    (OCA IPI 99-746-MTJ)

    FELICITAS M. HIMALIN, Complainant, v. JUDGE ISAURO M. BALDERIAN, Municipal Trial Court, Bacoor, Cavite, Respondent.

    D E C I S I O N


    PER CURIAM:


    FELICITAS M. HIMALIN filed this administrative complaint on 22 July 1999 charging respondent Judge Isauro M. Balderian, MTC-Bacoor, Cavite, with Serious or Deliberate Neglect of Duty for his failure to act on a "Motion to Strike Out Defendant’s Position Paper" filed by plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 2127, "Spouses Loreto Estrada and Daisy H. Estrada represented by their Attorney-In-Fact Mrs. Felicitas M. Himalin v. Tranquilino F. Seloterio, Et Al.," and to resolve the ejectment case despite the lapse of the thirty (30)-day period prescribed under Sec. 11, Rule 70, of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. 1chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    Specifically, complainant alleged that she was the attorney-in-fact of the plaintiffs in the ejectment case; that respondent Judge issued a pre-trial order dated 12 January 1999 directing the parties to submit their respective position papers within ten (10) days from receipt of the order; that plaintiffs seasonably filed their paper but the defendants failed to do so despite receipt of the order on 29 January 1999; 2 that when the defendants finally filed their position paper on 13 February 1999 or four (4) days beyond the prescribed period, plaintiffs filed a "Motion to Strike Out Defendants’ Position Paper" for late filing; that when respondent Judge failed to act on the motion for almost two (2) months plaintiffs filed on 16 April 1999 a "Motion for Early Resolution" not only of the motion but also of the case for ejectment itself; and, that by reason of respondent Judge’s continued failure to do so, this administrative case was filed on 22 July 1999, docketed as OCA-IPI-No. 99-764-MTJ.

    In a 1st Indorsement dated 9 August 1999, the complaint was referred by then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo to respondent Judge for comment within ten (10) days from notice. Respondent Judge however did not file the required comment.

    Consequently, a 1st Tracer dated 15 November 1999 was issued by the Court Administrator reminding respondent Judge of his failure to file his comment. Respondent was given another five (5) days otherwise the case would be submitted to the Court for its consideration without his comment. Respondent Judge received the letter on 25 November 1999 per registry return receipt attached to the records but respondent again failed to comply.

    On 7 June 2000, upon recommendation of the Court Administrator, respondent was required to show cause why he should not be administratively charged for his repeated failure to file his comment. Respondent Judge received copy of the directive on 28 June 2000 per registry return receipt but respondent still failed to comply. Consequently we imposed upon respondent a fine of P2,000.00 to be paid within ten (10) days from notice or suffer imprisonment for five (5) days. At the same time, we reiterated the directive for the submission of his comment. 3

    Unfazed, respondent persistently failed to comply despite receipt of the foregoing directive on 24 April 2001. Hence, in our Resolution dated 12 November 2001 we increased the fine to P4,000.00 and directed him to file the comment or face arrest and detention.

    Respondent paid the fine of P4,000.00 on 30 January 2002 but did not explain why he did not file his comment in the first place.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    On 8 July 2002 the Court was constrained to declare respondent guilty of contempt of court and ordered his arrest and detention at the National Bureau of Investigation detention cell until he shall have filed his comment. The NBI was directed to make an immediate return of the order of arrest and detention. On 12 February 2003, in view of the failure of the NBI to make a return of our order of arrest and detention, we issued another Resolution reiterating our directive to the NBI.

    Finally, in compliance with our foregoing directive, NBI Special Agent Dante Bonoan submitted his Return of Order of Arrest dated 20 March 2003 informing the Court that operatives of the Special Action Unit, NBI, attempted to arrest respondent Judge on 12 and 20 March 2003 but to no avail because the latter was reportedly neither in his sala at the MTC-Bacoor, Cavite, nor in his residence at No. 21 Julian Felipe St., BF Homes, Parañaque. Nonetheless, Special Agent Boboan gave the assurance that the operatives would continue to pursue respondent Judge so that he would be detained until he complied with the directive of this Court.

    Verification from the Leave Section of the Office of the Court Administrator shows that respondent Judge did not file any leave of absence for the whole month of March 2003, hence, we could not find any reason why the NBI special agents could not arrest respondent on the dates mentioned in their Return or on any other date prior thereto since our Order of Arrest was issued as early as 8 July 2002.

    Considering that more than ample opportunity had been given respondent Judge to file his comment and defend himself, we see no further reason to delay resolution of this case. Hence, we resolve the same on the basis of the pleadings and other documents already on record as well as the attendant circumstances.

    We have repeatedly warned judges that they should dispose of court business promptly, resolve pending motions and incidents, and decide cases within the prescribed periods 4 on the simple principle that justice delayed is justice denied. 5 We have defined the noble office of a judge as not merely to render justice impartially but expeditiously as well, for "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." 6 No less than the Constitution, specifically Sec. 15, par. (1), of Art. VIII, as well as the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rule 3.05, Canon 3, mandates that a magistrate should dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the prescribed periods. 7 We have administratively dealt with violators on charges of gross inefficiency 8 as well as serious violations of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. 9chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In the instant case, respondent Judge failed to act on the "Motion to Strike Out Defendant’s Position Paper" filed by the plaintiffs and to act on the ejectment case within thirty (30) days from receipt of the defendants’ position paper, if same be admitted, or from the expiration of the period to file the same, which was on 8 February 1999, despite the motion for resolution of the case dated 16 April 1999 filed by the plaintiffs, and in violation of Sec. 10 of The 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure which provides —

    Rendition of judgment. — Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment.

    However, should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last clarificatory affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same.

    Delay in the disposition of even one case constitutes gross inefficiency. 10 In the determination of the proper penalty, a number of factors have generally been taken into consideration, namely: the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge, etc. However, under the new amendments to Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, effective 1 October 2001, specifically Sec. 4, undue delay in rendering a decision in a case is classified as a less serious offense that merits under Sec. 10 (B) either suspension from office or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more than P19,999.00. However, under the circumstances, we shall not impose the foregoing penalty on respondent Judge considering that his less serious offense of undue delay in resolving Civil Case No. 2127 has been exacerbated and overshadowed by the more serious offense of wilful defiance and contumacious refusal of respondent judge to obey the lawful orders of this Court.

    As the records show and as already enumerated above, respondent ignored no less than two (2) directives of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and three (3) resolutions of this Court issued in a span of more than three (3) years directing him merely to file his comment on the administrative complaint.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    We have said that a resolution of this Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary is not to be construed as a mere request from the Court. 11 On the contrary, respondents in administrative cases are to take such resolutions seriously by commenting on all accusations or allegations against them as it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. 12 Any indifference to such resolutions has never been tolerated by this Court.

    Thus, a judge who deliberately and continuously failed and refused to comply with a resolution of this Court was held guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination, 13 the Supreme Court being the agency exclusively vested by our Constitution 14 with administrative supervision over all courts and court personnel from the Presiding Justice of the Court of Appeals to the lowest municipal trial court clerk. The Court can hardly discharge such constitutional mandate of overseeing judges and court personnel and taking proper administrative sanction against them 15 if the judge or personnel concerned does not even recognize its administrative authority.

    In Grefaldeo v. Lacson, 16 a case very similar to the instant one, respondent Judge likewise repeatedly and contumaciously refused to comment on the administrative case filed against her for delay in the resolution of a motion to dismiss a criminal case for estafa pending in her sala, despite numerous opportunities given her. Thus, after several directives issued in a span of more than three (3) years to no avail, the Court was left with no alternative but to dismiss respondent from the service. In meting out such penalty, the Court considered respondent’s defiant silence as not only an implied admission of guilt but, more importantly, a glaring proof of her recalcitrance and stubbornness to obey legitimate orders of the Court, and of utter lack of interest to remain with the judicial system to which, unfortunately, she unfittingly belonged. On the same principle, the Court did not hesitate to dismiss similar disobedient respondents in the more recent cases of Alonto-Frayna v. Astih, 17 Martinez v. Zoleta, 18 and Davila v. Generoso. 19

    We cannot hold otherwise in the instant case.

    WHEREFORE, for Gross Misconduct and Insubordination, respondent Judge Isauro M. Balderian is DISMISSED from the service with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and privileges, except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the government, including government-owned or controlled corporations. This Decision is immediately executory and respondent is directed upon receipt of this Decision to cease and desist from performing the functions of the office of Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Bacoor, Cavite, except to turn over all his cases and property accountabilities to his Clerk of Court or whoever is officially designated in charge of the court.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Puno, Vitug, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna and Tinga, JJ., concur.

    Corona and Carpio Morales, JJ., are on leave.

    Endnotes:



    1. Period for rendition of judgment. — Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment.

    However, should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of the order. Judgment shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last affidavit or the expiration of the period for filing the same.

    The court shall not resort to the foregoing procedure just to gain time for the rendition of the judgment.

    2. Per Certification dated 19 February of the Mandaluyong Central Post Office.

    3. Resolution dated 14 March 2001.

    4. Ganzon II v. Ereño, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1554,1 June 2000, 333 SCRA 6, 11.

    5. Villanueva, Jr. v. Estoque, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1494, 346 SCRA 230, 236.

    6. Office of the Court Administrator v. Quilada, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1341, 15 February 2001, 351 SCRA 597, 603; Cases Submitted for Decision Before Retired Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., RTC-Br. 53, Manila, A.M. No. 99-7-250-RTC, 5 April 2000, 329 SCRA 637, 643.

    7. Heirs of Crisostomo Sucaldito v. Cruz, A.M. RTJ-99-1456, 27 July 2000, 336 SCRA 469, 474; Office of the Court Administrator v. Aquino, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1555, 22 June 2000, 334 SCRA 179, 184.

    8. Office of the Court Administrator v. Salva, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1412, 19 July 2000, 336 SCRA 133, 141; Hilario v. Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454, 2 March 2000, 327 SCRA 96, 103-104; Saylo v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1225, 12 April 2000, 330 SCRA 243, 248–249.

    9. Mosquera v. Legaspi, A.M. RTJ-99-1511, 10 July 2000, 335 SCRA 326, 329 citing Re: Judge Fernando P. Agdamag, A.M. No. RTJ-94-4-156, 13 March 1996, 254 SCRA 644, 650.

    10. Report on the Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 40, Quezon City, A.M. No. 98-2-22-MeTC, 11 May 2000, 331 SCRA 627, 638; Dela Cruz v. Bersamira, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1567, 24 July 2000, 336 SCRA 353, 360.

    11. Martinez v. Zoleta, A.M. No. MTJ-94-904, 29 September 1999, 315 SCRA 438, 448–449.

    12. Ibid.

    13. Alonto-Frayna v. Astih, A.M. No. SDC-98-3, 16 December 1998, 300 SCRA 199, 202–203.

    14. See Art. VIII, Sec. 6, which provides: ‘The Supreme Court shall have administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof.

    15. Fuentes v. Office of the Ombudsman-Mindanao, G.R. No. 124295, 23 October 2001, 368 SCRA 36, 42.

    16. A.M. No. MTJ-93-881, 3 August 1998, 293 SCRA 524.

    17. A.M. No. SDC-98-3, 16 December 1998, 300 SCRA 199.

    18. A.M. No. MTJ-94-904, 29 September 1999, 315 SCRA 438.

    19. A.M. No. MTJ-95-1062, 31 July 2000, 336 SCRA 576.

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


    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