June 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > June 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2121 : June 01, 2009] MARIA SHEILA ALMIRA T. VIESCA V. JUDGE REBECCA R. MARIANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 136, MAKATI CITY :
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2121 : June 01, 2009]
MARIA SHEILA ALMIRA T. VIESCA V. JUDGE REBECCA R. MARIANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 136, MAKATI CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 1 June 2009
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2121: MARIA SHEILA ALMIRA T. VIESCA v. JUDGE REBECCA R. MARIANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 136, MAKATI CITY
Maria Sheila Almira T. Viesca (Viesca) filed a Verified Complaint charging respondent Judge Rebecca R. Mariano (Judge Mariano) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136, Makati City with Undue Delay in the resolution of pending motions relative to JDRC Case No. M-5785 entitled "David Gilinsky v. Maria Sheila Almira T. Viesca."
Viesca is the respondent in the JDRC case. A Compromise Agreement was entered into in the JDRC case which contained, among other things, the matter of custody over the child (Clause I); visitation rights of the petitioner-father (Clause II); and support (Clause III). This Compromise Agreement was approved on 12 May 2004.
On 5 April 2005, David Gilinsky (Gilinsky), the petitioner in the JDRC case, filed an urgent motion for execution of his visitation rights over the child as contained in Clause II. Judge Mariano issued a writ of execution on 8 April 2005. However, the writ was not implemented because only Viesca's father and a certain Atty. Jorge Manuel were present at Viesca's residence. They informed the sheriff that they would not comply with the court order and would contest the same. On 12 April 2005, the sheriff served the court order and writ personally on Viesca but the latter refused to acknowledge receipt thereof.
Frustrated, Gilinsky filed motions on 17 May, 2 June, 6 October, 27 December 2005, and 16 October 2006 for the enforcement of Clause II. He also filed on 4 January 2006 a motion to suspend support until Viesca had allowed him the full exercise of his visitation rights.
On 11 January 2006, Viesca filed a Motion for Execution to enforce the judgment for support as provided in Clause III of the Compromise Judgment dated 12 May 2004. Gilinsky opposed the motion on 1 February 2006. Another Motion was filed on 15 September 2006 for the execution of Clause III of the same Compromise Judgment. The second motion was set for hearing on 22 September 2006 and Judge Mariano issued an Order giving the parties time to file their respective pleadings, after which, the matter shall be resolved.
On 10 January 2007, Viesca filed a Motion for Early Resolution but the pending motions were not resolved.
Hence, the present administrative case.
Viesca believed she was not getting any fair treatment and justice as a litigant from Judge Mariano. She averred that Judge Mariano acted with undue haste when she issued a writ of execution on the same day that Gilinsky's Urgent Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution (on his visitonal rights) was set for hearing and despite the motion of Viesca's counsel for seven days to comment thereon and to reset the hearing because of a prior engagement. On Gilinsky's Motion for Temporary Relief from Support, Judge Mariano also issued an order specifying the schedule of the overnight visit which was highly irregular considering that this was not even the subject of that motion. Viesca prayed that Judge Mariano be ordered to resolve her pending motions.
In her Comment, Judge Mariano averred that the reason why she had not acted on Viesca's motion, which was filed twice, was because of the latter's contradictory motions and prayers. Viesca repeatedly asked for the judge's inhibition, simultaneous with the filing of the motions for execution.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted its report and recommendation. The OCA opined that the filing by a party of a motion for inhibition against the judge is not an adequate justification for failing to render a decision or resolution within the prescribed period. Inhibitions and disqualifications are judicial actions which do not require prior administrative approval. The OCA found that Judge Mariano failed to render resolutions within the prescribed period as mandated by law.
We agree with the OCA.
Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution expressly states that lower courts have three months within which to decide cases or matters submitted to them for resolution. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct likewise directs judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
The instant administrative complaint was filed on 26 July 2007. Viesca's motions for execution were tiled in January 2006 and September 2006 and these motions remained pending even after Judge Mariano filed on 24 September 2007 her Comment to the administrative complaint. In deferring the resolution of Viesca's motions for execution because of Viesca's repeated requests for her inhibition, Judge Mariano not only failed to exercise sound discretion but also violated the law as mandated by Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and by no less than the Constitution itself.
Judge Mariano ought to be reminded of her duty to dispose of court business promptly within the period prescribed by law or the extended time granted by this Court. Canon 3 extols a judge to be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to her, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the public in the institution of justice, lowers its standards and brings them into disrepute. It is because of this that every judge must cultivate a capacity for quick decision, and must not delay the judgment which a party justly deserves. The public trust reposed in a judge's office imposes the highest degree of responsibility to promptly administer justice.[1] Delay in resolving motions violates the norms of judicial conduct and is administratively sanctionable. Judges must decide cases and resolve matters with dispatch because any delay in the administration of justice, no matter how brief, deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of their case and undermines the people's faith in the judiciary.[2]
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or resolution as a less serious offense punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. This is not Judge Mariano's first infraction. Judge Mariano was previously sanctioned in A.M. No. RTJ-06-20103 for gross misconduct for intentional misrepresentation of her records resulting in a breach of trust and confidence as well as for making untruthful statements in the monthly reports. She was fined P40,000, with a stern warning that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely. The Court, however, notes that Judge Mariano already retired from the service on 9 October 2008 upon reaching the compulsory retirement age. As recommended by the OCA, a fine of �20,000 is imposed upon Judge Mariano.
WHEREFORE, we find Judge Rebecca R. Mariano GUILTY of Undue Delay in rendering an order or resolution. She is FINED P20,000, which shall be deducted from her retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson. Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona, Teresita Leonardo de Castro and Lucas P. Bersamin, Members, First Division, this 1st day of June 2009.
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2121: MARIA SHEILA ALMIRA T. VIESCA v. JUDGE REBECCA R. MARIANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 136, MAKATI CITY
Maria Sheila Almira T. Viesca (Viesca) filed a Verified Complaint charging respondent Judge Rebecca R. Mariano (Judge Mariano) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136, Makati City with Undue Delay in the resolution of pending motions relative to JDRC Case No. M-5785 entitled "David Gilinsky v. Maria Sheila Almira T. Viesca."
Viesca is the respondent in the JDRC case. A Compromise Agreement was entered into in the JDRC case which contained, among other things, the matter of custody over the child (Clause I); visitation rights of the petitioner-father (Clause II); and support (Clause III). This Compromise Agreement was approved on 12 May 2004.
On 5 April 2005, David Gilinsky (Gilinsky), the petitioner in the JDRC case, filed an urgent motion for execution of his visitation rights over the child as contained in Clause II. Judge Mariano issued a writ of execution on 8 April 2005. However, the writ was not implemented because only Viesca's father and a certain Atty. Jorge Manuel were present at Viesca's residence. They informed the sheriff that they would not comply with the court order and would contest the same. On 12 April 2005, the sheriff served the court order and writ personally on Viesca but the latter refused to acknowledge receipt thereof.
Frustrated, Gilinsky filed motions on 17 May, 2 June, 6 October, 27 December 2005, and 16 October 2006 for the enforcement of Clause II. He also filed on 4 January 2006 a motion to suspend support until Viesca had allowed him the full exercise of his visitation rights.
On 11 January 2006, Viesca filed a Motion for Execution to enforce the judgment for support as provided in Clause III of the Compromise Judgment dated 12 May 2004. Gilinsky opposed the motion on 1 February 2006. Another Motion was filed on 15 September 2006 for the execution of Clause III of the same Compromise Judgment. The second motion was set for hearing on 22 September 2006 and Judge Mariano issued an Order giving the parties time to file their respective pleadings, after which, the matter shall be resolved.
On 10 January 2007, Viesca filed a Motion for Early Resolution but the pending motions were not resolved.
Hence, the present administrative case.
Viesca believed she was not getting any fair treatment and justice as a litigant from Judge Mariano. She averred that Judge Mariano acted with undue haste when she issued a writ of execution on the same day that Gilinsky's Urgent Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution (on his visitonal rights) was set for hearing and despite the motion of Viesca's counsel for seven days to comment thereon and to reset the hearing because of a prior engagement. On Gilinsky's Motion for Temporary Relief from Support, Judge Mariano also issued an order specifying the schedule of the overnight visit which was highly irregular considering that this was not even the subject of that motion. Viesca prayed that Judge Mariano be ordered to resolve her pending motions.
In her Comment, Judge Mariano averred that the reason why she had not acted on Viesca's motion, which was filed twice, was because of the latter's contradictory motions and prayers. Viesca repeatedly asked for the judge's inhibition, simultaneous with the filing of the motions for execution.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted its report and recommendation. The OCA opined that the filing by a party of a motion for inhibition against the judge is not an adequate justification for failing to render a decision or resolution within the prescribed period. Inhibitions and disqualifications are judicial actions which do not require prior administrative approval. The OCA found that Judge Mariano failed to render resolutions within the prescribed period as mandated by law.
We agree with the OCA.
Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution expressly states that lower courts have three months within which to decide cases or matters submitted to them for resolution. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct likewise directs judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
The instant administrative complaint was filed on 26 July 2007. Viesca's motions for execution were tiled in January 2006 and September 2006 and these motions remained pending even after Judge Mariano filed on 24 September 2007 her Comment to the administrative complaint. In deferring the resolution of Viesca's motions for execution because of Viesca's repeated requests for her inhibition, Judge Mariano not only failed to exercise sound discretion but also violated the law as mandated by Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and by no less than the Constitution itself.
Judge Mariano ought to be reminded of her duty to dispose of court business promptly within the period prescribed by law or the extended time granted by this Court. Canon 3 extols a judge to be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to her, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the public in the institution of justice, lowers its standards and brings them into disrepute. It is because of this that every judge must cultivate a capacity for quick decision, and must not delay the judgment which a party justly deserves. The public trust reposed in a judge's office imposes the highest degree of responsibility to promptly administer justice.[1] Delay in resolving motions violates the norms of judicial conduct and is administratively sanctionable. Judges must decide cases and resolve matters with dispatch because any delay in the administration of justice, no matter how brief, deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of their case and undermines the people's faith in the judiciary.[2]
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or resolution as a less serious offense punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. This is not Judge Mariano's first infraction. Judge Mariano was previously sanctioned in A.M. No. RTJ-06-20103 for gross misconduct for intentional misrepresentation of her records resulting in a breach of trust and confidence as well as for making untruthful statements in the monthly reports. She was fined P40,000, with a stern warning that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely. The Court, however, notes that Judge Mariano already retired from the service on 9 October 2008 upon reaching the compulsory retirement age. As recommended by the OCA, a fine of �20,000 is imposed upon Judge Mariano.
WHEREFORE, we find Judge Rebecca R. Mariano GUILTY of Undue Delay in rendering an order or resolution. She is FINED P20,000, which shall be deducted from her retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson. Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona, Teresita Leonardo de Castro and Lucas P. Bersamin, Members, First Division, this 1st day of June 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] Umale v. Fadid, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-06-1660, 30 November 2006, 509 SCRA 19.
[2] China Banking Corporation v. Janolo, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-07-2035, 12 June ?008 554 SCRA 295,
[3] Mondala v. Mariano, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2010, 25 January 2007, 512 SCRA 585.
