June 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > June 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2120 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2681-RTJ] : June 16, 2008] GLORIA B. RASCA V. HON. JULES A. MEJIA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 54, ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN:
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2120 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2681-RTJ] : June 16, 2008]
GLORIA B. RASCA V. HON. JULES A. MEJIA, PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 54, ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 16 June 2008:
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2120 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2681-RTJ] (Gloria B. Rasca v. Hon. Jules A. Mejia, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 54, Alaminos City, Pangasinan)
Complainant Gloria B. rascal charges Presiding Judge Jules A. Mejia of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Brach 54 in Alaminos City, Pangasinan, with refusal to render judgment, grave misconduct, and dishonesty for failing to decide Civil Case No. A-2568 within the reglementary period.
On December 18, 2002, the parties in Civil Case No. A-2568 rested their case, but Judge Mejia declared the case submitted for decision only on May 15, 2003. On August 25, 2003 he recalled his previous or order declaring the case submitted for decisions. He then proceeded to conduct clarificatory hearings. Judge Mejia reasoned that he recalled the order submitting the case for decision because he needed to clarify the existence of the documentary evidence in their original from the pursuant to Rule 135, Section 5(g) of the Rules of Court. He commented that since the clarificatory hearings were conducted with the active participation of both parties, they have thus waived their rights on the deferment of the submission of the case for resolution. Judge Mejia opined that this waiver by the parties exonerates him for the delay under the rule on equitable principle.
On January 5, 2004, Judge Mejia asked the Court Administrator for an extension of ninety (90) days to decide the case. The Third Division of the Court resolved to grant him the extension on May 31, 2004.
Despite repeated follow-ups by the parties in the civil case, Judge Mejia still failed to decide it. Complainant then filed a letter of complainant with the Court Administrator on November 24, 2006.
The investigation and recommendation of the Court Administrator show that Judge Mejia failed to decide the case for almost three (3) years since the issuance of the Court�s resolution directing to him to do so. Judge Mejia�s reasons are not satisfactory. After the Court granted him an extension of 90 days, Judge Mejia allowed the further presentation of evidence and conducted clarificatory hearing. Granting that these were an exercise of his judicial discretion, he should have done so within the prescribed period. Had he realized he still would not be able to decide the case within the extended period, he should have asked for another extension.
Although we find no bad faith in Judge Mejia�s act of allowing the further presentation of evidence in Civil Case No. A-2568, he is still liable for the delay. He cannot take refuge in his claim that it was only in October 18, 2006 that the case was finally turned over to his branch.
Sec. 15 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides:
The requirement of the law that cases be decided within a specified period from their submission is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice. For justice delayed is often justice denied, and delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers its standard, and brings it into disrepute.[2] Every judge must cultivate a capacity for quick decision which a party justly deserves, for the public trust character of a judge�s office imposes upon him the highest degree of responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly administer justice.[3]
Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious offense[4] and is punishable either by suspension from the office without salary and other benefits for not less than nor more than three months or a fine of more than PhP 10,000 but not exceeding PhP 20,000. In light of the facts, we find that a fine of PhP 11,000 is commensurate.
WHEREFORE, we find Presiding Judge Jules A. Mejia of the RTC, Brach 54 in Alaminos City, Pangasinan GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. A-2568. He is hereby FINED in the amount of eleven thousand pesos (Php 11,000) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2120 [Formerly A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 07-2681-RTJ] (Gloria B. Rasca v. Hon. Jules A. Mejia, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 54, Alaminos City, Pangasinan)
Complainant Gloria B. rascal charges Presiding Judge Jules A. Mejia of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Brach 54 in Alaminos City, Pangasinan, with refusal to render judgment, grave misconduct, and dishonesty for failing to decide Civil Case No. A-2568 within the reglementary period.
On December 18, 2002, the parties in Civil Case No. A-2568 rested their case, but Judge Mejia declared the case submitted for decision only on May 15, 2003. On August 25, 2003 he recalled his previous or order declaring the case submitted for decisions. He then proceeded to conduct clarificatory hearings. Judge Mejia reasoned that he recalled the order submitting the case for decision because he needed to clarify the existence of the documentary evidence in their original from the pursuant to Rule 135, Section 5(g) of the Rules of Court. He commented that since the clarificatory hearings were conducted with the active participation of both parties, they have thus waived their rights on the deferment of the submission of the case for resolution. Judge Mejia opined that this waiver by the parties exonerates him for the delay under the rule on equitable principle.
On January 5, 2004, Judge Mejia asked the Court Administrator for an extension of ninety (90) days to decide the case. The Third Division of the Court resolved to grant him the extension on May 31, 2004.
Despite repeated follow-ups by the parties in the civil case, Judge Mejia still failed to decide it. Complainant then filed a letter of complainant with the Court Administrator on November 24, 2006.
The investigation and recommendation of the Court Administrator show that Judge Mejia failed to decide the case for almost three (3) years since the issuance of the Court�s resolution directing to him to do so. Judge Mejia�s reasons are not satisfactory. After the Court granted him an extension of 90 days, Judge Mejia allowed the further presentation of evidence and conducted clarificatory hearing. Granting that these were an exercise of his judicial discretion, he should have done so within the prescribed period. Had he realized he still would not be able to decide the case within the extended period, he should have asked for another extension.
Although we find no bad faith in Judge Mejia�s act of allowing the further presentation of evidence in Civil Case No. A-2568, he is still liable for the delay. He cannot take refuge in his claim that it was only in October 18, 2006 that the case was finally turned over to his branch.
Sec. 15 of Article VIII of the Constitution provides:
(1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months of all other lower courts.Furthermore, Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary provides that �judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.� He must thereof take note of the cases submitted for his decision and see to it that the same are decided within the 90-day period fixed by law.[1]
x x x x
(4) Despite the expiration of the applicable mandatory period, the court, without prejudice to such responsibility as may have been incurred in consequence thereof, shall decide or resolve the case or matter submitted thereto for determination, without further delay.
The requirement of the law that cases be decided within a specified period from their submission is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice. For justice delayed is often justice denied, and delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers its standard, and brings it into disrepute.[2] Every judge must cultivate a capacity for quick decision which a party justly deserves, for the public trust character of a judge�s office imposes upon him the highest degree of responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly administer justice.[3]
Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious offense[4] and is punishable either by suspension from the office without salary and other benefits for not less than nor more than three months or a fine of more than PhP 10,000 but not exceeding PhP 20,000. In light of the facts, we find that a fine of PhP 11,000 is commensurate.
WHEREFORE, we find Presiding Judge Jules A. Mejia of the RTC, Brach 54 in Alaminos City, Pangasinan GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. A-2568. He is hereby FINED in the amount of eleven thousand pesos (Php 11,000) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Office of the Court Administrator v. Benedicto, A.M. No. 96-5-176-RTC, September 25, 1998, 296 SCRA 62, 71.
[2] Escaillas v. martinez, Adm. Matter No. 127-MJ, August 31, 1977, 78 SCRA 367, 71.
[3] Bonilla v. Gustillo, A.M.-RTJ-00-1569, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 315, 319.
[4] RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 9.
