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-02-1676   August 28, 2003 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. GUILLERMO R. ANDAYA

     
    PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

    FIRST DIVISION

    [A.M. No. RTJ-02-1676. August 28, 2003.]

    OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner, v. JUDGE GUILLERMO R. ANDAYA, Respondent.

    R E S O L U T I O N


    AZCUNA, J.:


    A judicial audit and physical inventory were conducted in the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branches 53 and 54, between October 27 and 30, 1997. After the audit, it was discovered that Branch 53 has 26 cases submitted for decision that have not yet been decided despite the lapse of the 90-day reglementary period, 8 cases that were appealed from lower courts which have remained undecided beyond the reglementary period, 3 criminal cases set for promulgation, 9 cases with pending motions/incidents which could determine their final termination but remain unresolved beyond the reglementary period and 18 cases with other pending motions/incidents that remain unresolved beyond the reglementary period. As for Branch 54, the audit team found that there were 13 cases submitted for decision that have remained undecided despite the lapse of the 90-day reglementary period, 3 undecided cases that were appealed from lower courts which were deemed submitted for decision and were already beyond the reglementary period, 2 criminal cases set for promulgation and 11 cases with pending motions/incidents which could determine their final termination but which have remained unresolved beyond the reglementary period. The judge responsible for deciding, resolving and promulgating the abovementioned cases is respondent Judge Guillermo R. Andaya. Judge Andaya is the presiding judge of Branch 53 and was, for a time, the acting presiding judge of Branch 54.

    In a resolution dated March 24, 1998, the Court en banc gave Judge Andaya four months from notice to decide, resolve and promulgate all the aforesaid pending cases. The Court also required him to explain in writing within ten days why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for his failure to decide and resolve said cases within the prescribed period, and for certifying in his Certificate of Service for the month of September 1997, that all cases submitted for decision and motions for resolutions have been determined by him. In the meantime, Judge Andaya’s salary was withheld and he was ordered not to try cases in his sala in order to devote his time in complying with the Court’s directive.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In a letter dated May 18, 1998, Judge Andaya manifested his regrets for not deciding his cases and resolving his motions within the prescribed period owing, to some extent, in having to preside over two branches and being designated to try cases of heinous crimes. Judge Andaya also asked for leniency for the error he committed in his Certificate of Service for September 1997.

    In a follow-up audit conducted on July 29, 1999, it was reported that while Judge Andaya was able to dispose of some of his cases, there still remained 19 undecided cases and 14 unresolved motions for Branch 53. For Branch 54, 16 cases submitted for decisions and 1 motion remained pending. In addition, decisions in 2 criminal cases still awaited promulgation. Thus, in a resolution dated November 22, 1999, Judge Andaya was directed immediately to decide, resolve and promulgate the pending cases. In another resolution dated March 29, 2000, based on the recommendation of then Court Administrator, Justice Alfredo Benipayo, Judge Andaya was directed to submit within a non-extendible period of ten days from notice a comprehensive report of the cases he has decided, resolved and promulgated.

    In compliance with the March 29, 2000 resolution, Judge Andaya submitted a report dated April 26, 2000. The report was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation. In his report, the Court Administrator found that there still remained 24 undecided cases, 8 unresolved motions and 2 criminal cases that have not been reported if they have been promulgated. Thus, in a resolution dated October 2, 2000, the Court directed Judge Andaya to render within sixty days from notice the decisions and the resolutions in the remaining cases. Judge Andaya was also directed immediately to report on whether or not the two criminal cases have been promulgated.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In a letter dated November 14, 2000, Judge Andaya reported on the promulgation of the two criminal cases. However, after the lapse of the sixty-day period, Judge Andaya failed to report on whether he has rendered his decisions on the 24 cases or resolved the 8 pending motions. Consequently, the Court issued a resolution dated March 5, 2001 directing Judge Andaya to decide his 24 cases within sixty days from notice and, within one month from notice, to resolve his pending motions and to submit copies of the decisions and resolutions to the Office of the Court Administrator. Judge Andaya received the resolution on March 27, 2001. In a letter dated May 28, 2001, two days after the expiration of the 60-day period, Judge Andaya requested an extension of time until June 20, 2001 to decide the cases due to the death of his mother which necessitated him to be in Ilocos Norte for her burial. He, however, submitted copies of his resolutions on the 8 pending motions. The request was followed by two other requests for extension, the last one praying that he be given until July 14, 2001 to submit his complete report on the matter. On July 11, 2001, Judge Andaya submitted copies of his decisions pertaining to the rest of the undecided cases.

    In a resolution dated February 18, 2002, the Court docketed the matter as an administrative complaint against Judge Andaya entitled "Re: Failure of Judge Guillermo R. Andaya to decide cases within the reglementary period and for submitting falsified Certificate of Service for September 1997." The same resolution required Judge Andaya to Manifest within ten days from notice if he is willing to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed, authorized Judge Andaya to resume his duties as presiding judge of Branch 53, and authorized the release of all of Judge Andaya’s salaries and allowances.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary

    In a letter dated March 21, 2002, Judge Andaya manifested his willingness to submit his case for resolution, with a plea for kindness.

    For his failure to decide cases and resolve motions within the mandatory period and for certifying in his Certificate of Service for September 1997 that all cases submitted for decision and motions for resolution have been determined and decided by him, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge Andaya be fined in the amount of P20,000.

    After a thorough review of the records, the Court finds such penalty commensurate to the actuation of respondent Judge.

    Regrettably, Judge Andaya did not interpose any defense to the charge of falsification of Certificate of Service and merely implored the Court for leniency to the error he committed. As the presiding magistrates of the courts, judges are duty bound scrupulously to adhere to, and hold sacred, the tenets of the profession of law. They must be reminded that a certificate of service is not merely a means to receive one’s salary. 1 It is part of the sacred task of dispensing justice. A judge must at all times be an embodiment of competence, integrity, probity and independence, and not allow himself to be an instrument of fraud. 2

    As for the delay in the disposition of his cases, the excuses proffered by Judge Andaya, that he was presiding over two branches and was designated to try heinous crimes cases, do not exempt him from administrative liability. A total of 50 undecided cases, 38 unresolved motions and 5 decisions were noted during the judicial audit. From the time these pending matters were discovered, it took more than two and a half years for Judge Andaya properly to dispose of them. This clearly demonstrates how grossly ineffectual he was in discharging his judicial functions. The Court cannot tolerate such inefficiency in the administration of justice. Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the period fixed by law. It is the duty of a judge to take note of the cases submitted for his decision and to see to it that the same are decided within the 90-day period fixed by law. 3 If it is true that a heavy caseload prevented him from disposing cases within the period prescribed by law, Judge Andaya should have requested the Court for reasonable extensions of time to decide the cases involved. 4

    A judge who fails to decide his cases within the reglementary period and continues to collect his salaries upon his certification that he has no pending matters to resolve, transgresses the constitutional right of the people to the speedy disposition of their cases. Under A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, amending Rule 140 on the Discipline of Justices and Judges, undue delay in rendering a decision or order and making untruthful statements in the Certificate of Service are both categorized as less serious charges and punishable by suspension without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. 5 Taking into consideration the number of pending incidents and the length of time it took to dispose of the case, despite repeated directives from this Court to do so, and the fact that Judge Andaya is found guilty of two infractions, the penalty of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) should be imposed.

    WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, respondent Judge Andaya is hereby FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000), with a WARNING that a repetition of any or both infractions shall be dealt with more severely.

    SO ORDERED.

    Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Ynares-Santiago and Carpio, JJ., concur.

    Endnotes:



    1. Bolalin v. Occiano, 266 SCRA 203 (1997).

    2. Re: Judge Fernando P. Agdamag, 254 SCRA 644 (1996).

    3. Saylo v. Rojo, 330 SCRA 243 (2000).

    4. Re: Judicial Audit Report Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Kidapawan City, A.M. 02-8-471-RTC, March 14, 2003.

    5. Sections 9 and 11.

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


    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