SECOND
DIVISION
ROMEO
STA. ANA,
Complainant,
A. M. No. RTJ-97-1394
December 17, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
GRACIANO H. ARINDAY, JR.,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 69,
Silay City, Negros Occidental,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
This concerns a
letter-complaint dated July 17,
1996 against Judge Graciano Arinday, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch
69, Silay City, Negros Occidental, for delay in the resolution of
Criminal
Cases Nos. 3094-69 and 3095-69 which complainant had filed against
Minerva
Ercilla for estafa and violation of B. P. Blg. 22. Complainant alleges
that the prosecution rested its case on October 11, 1994 but, despite
the
fact that the accused did not introduce any evidence in her defense,
respondent
judge "literally slept" on the cases.
In his comment,
respondent judge alleges that
the aforesaid cases were among the 200 transferred to his sala when he
assumed office on May 31, 1994 and that before that there had been no
hearing
conducted in those cases; that while it is true that complainant's
cases
were submitted for resolution on October 11, 1994, he decided to wait,
relying on the possibility of an amicable settlement by the parties
because
complainant's counsel had manifested during trial that complainant was
open to settlement and in similar cases before him [Criminal Cases Nos.
3592-69 and 3600-69 against Delia Larang] complainant had in fact
settled
with the accused; that complainant apparently was not serious about
prosecuting
the accused but was only interested in collecting from her and was thus
merely using the court as a "collection agency." In any case,
respondent
judge says he will decide the criminal cases "very soon."
Complainant
alleges in reply that it was respondent
judge who suggested an amicable settlement by asking his counsel the
terms
for such a settlement and that he agreed with the suggestion to avoid
the
inconvenience of a public trial but the failure of the accused Minerva
Ercilla to respond to the judge's proposal should have prompted him to
proceed with the cases; that he withdrew his two other cases against
Delia
Larang because of respondent judge's "lukewarm attitude" and "apparent
partiality" for Minerva Ercilla in Criminal Cases Nos. 3094-69 and
3095-69;
that it was not for respondent judge to speculate on his motives in
filing
the cases.cralaw:red
The question in
this case is whether respondent
judge is guilty of delay in deciding the cases which complainant had
filed
against Minerva Ercilla. The answer is in the affirmative. Respondent
judge
admits that the cases were submitted for resolution on October 11, 1994
when the prosecution rested its case and accused was considered to have
waived her right to introduce evidence by her failure to do so. Three
years
had since gone by without a decision in sight as respondent judge has
admitted
in his comment dated September 23, 1995 that he had only "started
assessing
the evidence through the records before the receipt of such complaint."
Respondent
judge's excuse, that he wanted to give
the parties a chance to arrive at an amicable settlement, is not
persuasive.
While his desire to ease his workload by having the parties arrive at
such
arrangement is understandable, three years is more than enough to make
him realize the futility of settlement and he should therefore have
waited
no longer. Under the law, he is required to decide cases within 90 days.[1]
Indeed, a judge cannot wait indefinitely for the parties to come to a
settlement
without opening himself to suspicion of partiality and bias. As this
Court
has held: "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."[2]
On the other
hand, the Court appreciates the fact
that respondent judge received quite a number of cases upon his
assumption
of office and therefore believes that a fine of P2,000.00 is sufficient
to impress on him the need to dispose of cases with deliberate speed.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, the
Court RESOLVED to [1] DOCKET this
case as administrative matter; [2] IMPOSE a FINE of P2,000.00 on Judge
Graciano H. Arinday, Jr., of the RTC, Branch 69, of Silay City, Negros
Occidental with WARNING that commission of the same or similar acts
will
be dealt with more severely; and [3] DIRECT Judge Arinday, Jr. to
RESOLVE
with deliberate speed Criminal Cases Nos. 3094-69 and 3095-69.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Regalado, Puno
and Martinez, JJ., concur.cralaw:red
_____________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Art. VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution provides in pertinent part
that
"(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, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts,
and
three months for all other lower courts." Canon 3. Rule 3.05 of the
Code
of Judicial Conduct, in turn provides that "A judge shall dispose of
the
court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods."
[2]
Re: Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., 247 SCRA 519 [1995]. |