FIRST
DIVISION
ELEAZAR
B. GASPAR,
Complainant,
A.
M.
No. RTJ-97-1388
OCA
I.P.I.
No. 97-307-RTJ
September
5, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
WILLIAM H.
BAYHON,
Respondent.
BELLOSILLO, J.:
Eleazar B. Gaspar,
Court Interpreter of the RTC-Br. 133, Makati, complainant herein, is
respondent
in Adm. Matter No. P-92-670, "Remedios Antonino v. Eleazar B. Gaspar,"
filed with the Office of the Court Administrator on 3 February 1992 for
conduct unbecoming of a government employee, intriguing against honor,
less serious physical injuries, and acts of lasciviousness.[1]
Respondent Judge William H. Bayhon, RTC-Br. 23, Manila, respondent
herein,
was the fifth of the five (5) Executive Judges of the Regional Trial
Court,
National Capital Judicial Region who were tasked, one after another, to
investigate Adm. Matter No. P-92-670.
Respondent Judge compulsorily
retired on 12 July 1997 but due to his alleged failure to submit his
report
on his investigation of the complaint against Gaspar, the former was
administratively
charged by Gaspar in an unverified complaint filed on 30 August 1996,
which
on 29 November 1996 was supplanted by a verified complaint. As a
consequence,
Judge Bayhon was unable to receive his retirement benefits to which by
law he was otherwise entitled.cralaw:red
The only issue to be
resolved is whether the delay in the submission of his report on Adm.
Matter
No. P-92-670 constitutes malicious delay in the administration of
justice
and a violation of Rule 2, Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[2]
A perusal of the affidavit-complaint
of Eleazar B. Gaspar fails to disclose any allegation that the delay,
if
any, was borne of a malicious intent. Malice connotes that the act
complained
of must be the result of a deliberate evil intent and does not cover a
mere voluntary act.[3]
Further, the delay must be the result of a deliberate intent to inflict
damage on either party to a case before him.[4]
Considering that there was not a single specific act alleged in the
complaint
imputing malice to respondent Judge resulting in the delay, thus
failing
to prove that the delay was malicious, the charge must fail.cralaw:red
As regards the allegation
that respondent Judge violated Rule 2, Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, it appears from the recollection of Gaspar himself that
respondent
Judge, however, was the the fifth of the five (5) Executive Judges of
the
National Capital Judicial Region who were assigned to investigate the
administrative
complaint of Remedios Antonino against Eleazar B. Gaspar. They were
Judge
Job B. Madayag and Judge Julio R. Logarta of Makati and now both
retired,
and Judge Rosalio G. de la Rosa and Judge Romeo J. Callejo, the former
having already retired and the latter now an Associate Justice of the
Court
of Appeals. Quite understandably, respondent Judge could not have been
familiar with the facts and the antecedents of the case before it was
finally
referred to him.cralaw:red
The records show that
Judge Madayag who received the records of Adm. Matter No. P-92-670 did
not act on the case in deference to therein complainant's Motion to
Transfer
Venue.[5]
Subsequently, on 12 October 1992, the case was reassigned to the Vice
Executive
Judge of Makati,[6]
Judge Julio R. Logarta, who then set the case for hearing and received
evidence but upon the instance of complainant Antonino the case was
transferred
to the Regional Trial Court of Manila on 24 February 1993.[7]
In the Regional Trial
Court of Manila, the case was assigned by Deputy Court Administrator
Juanito
A. Bernad to Executive Judge Rosalio G. de la Rosa who received the
case
on 24 May 1993.[8]
Judge dela Rosa scheduled the hearing immediately. Unfortunately, due
to
the absence of complainant and the unavailability of their respective
counsels,
the proceedings were conducted on various dates until, on 17 August
1994,
Judge de la Rosa retired from the judiciary.cralaw:red
The case was then transferred
to Judge Romeo T. Callejo, the succeeding Executive Judge of Manila,
who
however inhibited himself from the case.[9]
Finally, the case was
referred to the new Executive Judge, respondent William H. Bayhon. It
was
Judge Bayhon who expedited the disposal of the case by receiving the
remaining
evidence of the parties. In fact, in an Urgent Ex Parte Motion and
Manifestation
dated 11 September 1995 filed with respondent Judge, herein complainant
Gaspar stated, "Finally, the case was assigned in this Branch 28,
RTC-Manila,
presided by Your Honor. I am grateful because the hearing was expedited
until the evidence for the petitioner and respondent were concluded" [Emphasis
supplied].cralaw:red
After concluding the
reception of the evidence of the parties, respondent Judge, in an Order
dated 16 October 1995, gave complainant and respondent thirty (30) days
to submit simultaneously their respective memoranda, if they so
desired,
and thereafter considered the case submitted for decision. The records
disclose that the memorandum for respondent therein, complainant
herein,
was submitted on 4 December 1995 while the memorandum for complainant
therein
was filed on 5 March 1996. But, according to respondent Judge, he could
not immediately submit his Report and Recommendation since he did not
have
the records of the proceedings conducted by the judges before him. As
explained
in his Supplemental Comment with Prayer for Partial Release dated 31
July1997
But the undersigned
could not immediately proceed to resolve it since the records of the
case
did not contain records of the proceedings conducted by the previous
judges,
if they conducted any, including the transcript of stenographic notes.cralaw:red
While in Nidua v. Lazaro[10]
it was held that it was incumbent upon the judge to devise an efficient
recording and filing system in his court so that no disorderliness
could
affect the flow of cases and their speedy disposition, particularly
those
submitted for decision, respondent Judge herein had no control over the
completion of those stenographic notes as the testimonies were not
heard
before his sala and the stenographers were not under his supervision.
As
a matter of fact, to compel the completion of the notes, respondent
Judge
issued an order on 17 January 1997 directing Stenographers Marlyn Alve
and P. Bognot to submit their transcripts for 9 December 1992 [covering
the testimony of Remedios Antonino) and for 25 April 1994 (referring to
the testimony of Angelita Antonino] within five (5) days from receipt
of
his order.[11]
Unfortunately; it was learned that Alve was no longer with the
judiciary
while Bognot was not connected with the RTC-Br. 63 of Makati City[12]
where the order of Judge Bayhon was sent.cralaw:red
In San Pedro v. Salvador[13]
it was held that "a judge should not be blamed for the delay in the
disposition
of a case when the delay is beyond his control, specially in the
absence
of any showing that it was done in bad faith and intended to prejudice
a party to the case or that it was motivated by some ulterior ends." No
such ill motive was even alleged, much less proved, against respondent
Judge. Neither is there any allegation of dishonesty or partiality
against
him. A check with the Documentation Office of the Court shows that this
is the only administrative case against respondent Judge.cralaw:red
We are not saying that
under similar circumstances a judge may take his own sweet time in
resolving
the cases pending before him. In this administrative matter however,
our
observation is that respondent Judge, resolved the matter within a
reasonable
time despite the fact that the case was transferred from Makati to
Manila
and from one Judge to another, and that some records and transcripts of
stenographic notes are unavailable. If there was any delay in disposing
of the case, the delay was not attended with malice or ill motive. The
most that the Court can do is to admonish or reprimand the respondent
Judge.
But, certainly, after having reached the twilight of his judicial
career
when respondent Judge is now entitled to have peace of mind in his
retirement,
it will not serve any administrative purpose to impose any such
sanction
on him who has already compulsorily left the service as of 12 July
1997.
Certainly, he now deserves his well earned retirement benefits.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, this administrative
case is DISMISSED and, consequently, all the retirement benefits to
which
respondent Judge William H. Bayhon is entitled under the law are
ordered
RELEASED to him.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Vitug, Kapunan and
Hermosisima,
Jr., JJ., concur.
__________________________
Endnotes
[1]
See Records of Adm. Matter No. P-92-670, p. 3.
[2]
Id., p. 134.
[3]
See People v. Malabanan, 62 Phil. 786, 788 [1936].
[4]
Francisco, The Revised Penal Code, Book Two, 1960 Ed., p. 459.
[5]
Records of Adm. Matter No. P-92-670, p. 42.
[6]
Id., p. 62.
[7]
Id., p. 87.
[8]
Id., p. 91.
[9]
Id., p. 125.
[10]
A. M. No. R-465 MTJ, 29 June 1989, 174 SCRA 581, 586.
[11]
Records of Adm. Matter No. P-92-670, p. 397.
[12]
Id., p. 396.
[13]
Adm. Matter No. 749-CFI, 5 September 1975, 66 SCRA 534, 540. |