SECOND
DIVISION
FRANCISCO
BOLALIN,
Complainant,
A. M. No. MTJ-96-1104
January 14, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
SALVADOR M. OCCIANO,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
REGALADO, J.:
In a sworn letter complaint[1]
dated January 15, 1996, complainant Francisco Bolalin, who was a
candidate
for the office of Barangay Captain during the 1994 Barangay Elections,
charged respondent Judge Salvador M. Occiano of the Municipal Trial
Court
[MTC] of Balatan, Camarines Sur, with gross inefficiency and neglect of
duty for his failure to render his decision in Election Protest No. 1
within
the prescribed period. Complainant alleges that the last and final
hearing
of the election protest was on February 27, 1995 but, until now, it
does
not appear that a decision has been rendered by respondent.
He further claims
that respondent judge was absent
from his court for five consecutive months already and many cases have
been pending for decision, including that of the Chief of Police of
Balatan
which remained unacted upon since August 29, 1995. Additionally, he
reports
that respondent judge solemnizes marriages without being present at the
ceremony. He allegedly just directs the contracting parties and
witnesses
to sign the marriage contract in his absence and thereafter, the
documents
are brought to his residence at Nabua, Camarines Sur for his signature.cralaw:red
In compliance
with the resolution[2]
of this Court dated March 20, 1996, respondent judge filed his comment
on May 29, 1996, wherein he questions the veracity of the allegations
of
complainant. Specifically, he denies that Election Protest No. 1 was
submitted
for decision on February 27, 1995 which was allegedly the last hearing
conducted in the case, the truth being that the last pleading captioned
"Protestee's Objection to Formal Offer of Exhibits"[3]
was submitted on September 5, 1995. He vehemently denies being partial
to the protestee who is not a relative, friend or even an acquaintance
of his, and he claims that such allegation is speculative and a product
of complainant's fertile imagination.cralaw:red
Furthermore, he
also denies having been absent
for five consecutive months which resulted in his nonfeasance on the
cases
submitted for decision in his court. He claims that aside from
presiding
over the MTC of Balatan, he is also holding office in the Municipal
Circuit
Trial Court [MCTC] of Nabua-Bato, Camarines Sur which is some
twenty-seven
kilometers away from Balatan; that, to date, he is trying ten criminal
and civil cases originally assigned to Judge Mirardo R. Armea[4]
but who had inhibited himself therefrom; that he was also designated by
the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court [RTC], Iriga City to
try
fifteen criminal cases for violation of B. P. Blg. 22 filed before the
MCTC of Nabua-Bato, but from which he later excused himself by reason
of
personal affinity with the private complainant; that he was on vacation
leave of absence during the period from August to December, 1995 for
several
days, except in November, 1995 when Typhoon "Rosing" hit the Bicol
region,
especially Nabua where he resides, resulting in overflooding and
impassable
road conditions. Said leaves of absence are allegedly indicated in his
certificates of service for August to December, 1995 submitted to the
Leave
Section of the Supreme Court.cralaw:red
Respondent
likewise contends that he had actually
acted on the criminal complaint filed by the Chief of Police of
Balatan,
that the last hearing therein for reception of the evidence for the
prosecution
was on April 19, 1996, and that the defense was scheduled to present
its
witnesses on May 17, 24 and 31, 1996.cralaw:red
Finally, he
gainsays the reports that he had solemnized
marriages without being present at the ceremony or that the contracting
parties and their witnesses merely signed the marriage contracts which
were then brought to his residence for signature. He theorizes that
since
complainant is not an employee of the court or of any government
agency,
he could not have been able to obtain information of those facts,
assuming
the truth thereof.cralaw:red
As a
counterpoise, he alleges that, on two occasions,
complainant had asked him inside his chambers to decide the election
protest
in his favor. He avers that the case is being carefully studied by him
on account of the numerous documentary exhibits and, as of the date of
his comment, he was already finalizing the draft of his decision which
he himself types without the aid of his stenographer as has been his
practice
ever since he was appointed as a judge.cralaw:red
After a careful
examination of the records of
the case, and a thorough evaluation of the respective contentions of
the
parties, We find merit in the administrative complaint.cralaw:red
Respondent judge,
by his own admission in his
comment, is guilty of delay in deciding Election Protest No. 1 for, up
to the present, it would appear that he is still in the process of
preparing
the final draft of his decision although eight months have already
elapsed.cralaw:red
A petition or
protest contesting the election
of a barangay officer should be decided by the municipal or
metropolitan
trial court within fifteen days from the filing thereof.[5]
The period provided by law must be observed faithfully because an
election
case, unlike ordinary actions, involves public interest. Time is of the
essence in its disposition since the uncertainty as to who is the real
choice of the people for the position must soonest be dispelled. It is
neither fair nor just that one whose right to the office is in doubt
should
remain in that office for an uncertain period. It must be noted that
the
term of office of barangay officials is only three years, hence the
need
for the resolution of the controversy in the shortest possible time.cralaw:red
As observed in
the memorandum of the Office of
the Court Administrator submitted on October 24, 1996 which merits our
approval:
The excuse given by respondent Judge that
he
is also the Acting Judge of MCTC, Nabua-Bato and that he types his own
decision cannot be given credence for he ought to know that an election
protest case should be given preferential attention and, moreover, he
should
keep a list of cases already due for decision, to keep him guided. His
inaction for 8 months considering that the law requires only 15 days to
decide the case cannot be ignored and shows his incompetency.
A judge should
always be the embodiment of competence,
integrity and independence and should administer justice impartially
and
without delay.[6]
He should be faithful to the law and maintain professional competence,
dispose of the court's business promptly, and decide cases within the
required
periods.[7]
As We held in
Española vs. Panay,[8]
if the caseload of the judge prevents the disposition of cases within
the
reglementary periods, he should ask this Court for a reasonable
extension
of time to dispose of the cases involved. This is to avoid or dispel
any
suspicion that something sinister or corrupt is going on. However, the
records of this administrative matter do not show that any attempt was
made by respondent judge to make such a request. Instead, he preferred
to keep the case pending and shrouded by his silence.cralaw:red
Anent the charge
of absenteeism, respondent judge
vehemently disputes the allegation on his absence for five consecutive
months with the concomitant inaction on cases filed and submitted in
his
court for decision. He reasons out that whenever he was not in the MTC
of Balatan, Camarines Sur, he was holding office in the MCTC of
Nabua-Bato,
Camarines Sur by designation of the Executive Judge[9]
of the RTC of Iriga City. He insists that his absence for several days
for the period from August to December, 1995 were duly reflected in his
certificates of service submitted and on file with the Leave Section of
this Court.[10]
These representations, it will be noted, were made by him under oath.cralaw:red
His aforestated
submissions only aggravate the
charges against him for, again, We advert to the findings in the
memorandum
of the Office of Court Administrator, to wit:
[We] find merit (in) the charge of
absenteeism.
Judge Occiano maintains that he was on leave of absence from August to
December 1995 for several days and the same is reflected in his
Certificates
of Service covering said period. A verification with the Leave Section
of this Court, however, reveals that Judge Occiano for the periods
mentioned
never did file any application for leave of absence and, worse, he had
stated in his Certificates of Service for December 1995 that all
applications,
petitions, motions, resolutions and all civil and criminal cases under
submission for decision or determination for a period of ninety [90]
days
have been determined and decided on or before November 30, 1995 when
the
truth is Election Protest No. 1 has not been decided by him. His being
absent without any application for leave constitutes frequent
unauthorized
absences and his filing of a false certificate of service is tantamount
to gross dishonesty which falls within the category of less serious and
serious charges respectively under Sec. 3, Rule 140, Rules of Court.
Thus, because
of his unauthorized absences, not only
the constitutional and statutory requirements that cases be decided
within
the period fixed therefor were flagrantly violated. In the process, he
also contravened Section 16, Article III of the Constitution which
provides
that "[a]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies."
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[11].
We cannot countenance such undue delay by a judge, especially now when
there is an all-out effort to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the
problems
posed by congested dockets which have long plagued the courts.
On top of his
gross inefficiency, We are gravely
disturbed by his submission of false certificates of service which
seriously
undermines and reflects on the honesty and integrity expected of an
officer
of the court. We have ruled in Maceda vs. Vasquez,[12]
that a judge who submits a false certificate of service is
administratively
liable for serious misconduct under Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court and he is further criminally liable to the State under the
Revised
Penal Code.[13]
A certificate of service is not merely a means to one's paycheck but is
an instrument by which the Court can fulfill the constitutional mandate
of the people's right to a speedy disposition of cases.[14]
As to the charge
of solemnizing marriage without
his actual presence, complainant failed to mention any names or the
particulars
thereof, nor did he adduce any evidence, such as sworn affidavits of
the
contracting parties or the marriage contract itself, which would prove
that indeed the respondent judge committed such malfeasance. We are,
therefore,
constrained to dismiss this particular charge for lack of
substantiation.cralaw:red
Respondent judge
has committed infractions, both
administrative and criminal, of such a grave nature as to call for
sanctions
of commensurate degrees. He has disregarded and ignored our repeated
injunctions
that judges should endeavor to conduct themselves strictly in
accordance
with the mandate of the law and the Code of Judicial Ethics that they
be
exemplars in their community and the living personifications of Justice
and the Rule of Law.[15]
He has even ignored constitutional mandates.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, We
find and declare Judge Salvador
M. Occiano guilty of undue delay in deciding Election Protest No. 1,
absenteeism
in office, and falsification of certificates of service. He is hereby
meted,
in this instance, an administrative penalty of SUSPENSION from office
for
six (6) months without pay, without prejudice to the contingency
contemplated
in the following paragraph.
The Office of the Court Administrator shall
conduct
an evaluation of the criminal aspects of the falsification of
certificates
of service by respondent judge, as well as his false statements to this
Court in his comment made under oath, and based on the findings
thereon,
to take appropriate steps leading to the criminal prosecution thereof.
A report of the action taken shall forthwith be submitted to this
Court,
with the corresponding recommendation.cralaw:red
Let a copy of
this decision be attached to the
personal records of respondent judge.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Romero, Puno,
Mendoza and Torres, Jr., JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, 1.
[2]
Ibid., 4.
[3]
Ibid., 23.
[4]
Presiding Judge, MCTC, Nabua-Bato, Camarines Sur.
[5]Sec. 252 of B. P. 881 [Omnibus Election Code].
[6]
Rule 1.01 and 1.02, Code of Judicial Conduct; Cantela vs. Almoradie, A.
M. No. MTJ-93-749, February 7, 1994, 229 SCRA 712.
[7]
Wingarts vs. Mejia, A. M. No. MTJ-94-1012, March 20, 1995, 242 SCRA 436.
[8]
A. M. No. RTJ-95-l325, October 4, 1995, 248 SCRA 684, citing Cruz vs.
Basa,
A. M. No. MTJ-91-598, February 9, 1993, 218 SCRA 551.
[9]
Judge Reno R. Gonzalez.
[10]
Rollo, 8-9.
[11]
BPI vs. Generoso, A.M. No. MTJ-94-907, October 25, 1995, 249 SCRA 477.
[12]
G. R. No. 102781, April 22, 1993, 221 SCRA 464.
[13]
Art. 174, Revised Penal Code.
[14]
Sabitsana. Jr. vs. Villamor, A. M. No. RTJ-90-474, October 4, 1991, 202
SCRA 435.
[15]
SC Circular No. 13, dated July 1, 1987, par. 9. |