April 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > April 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2105 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 97-278-RTJ) : April 14, 2010] THELMA P. QUINTO V. JUDGE CRISPIN C. LARON, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 44, DAGUPAN CITY:
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2105 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 97-278-RTJ) : April 14, 2010]
THELMA P. QUINTO V. JUDGE CRISPIN C. LARON, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 44, DAGUPAN CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 14 April 2010:
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2105 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 97-278-RTJ): THELMA P. QUINTO v. JUDGE CRISPIN C. LARON, Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan City
Complainant Thelma P. Quinto (complainant) charges respondent Judge Crispin C. Laron (respondent judge) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Dagupan City with graft, violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and gross ignorance of the law relative to Civil Case No. 94-00321-D entitled Loreto Aquino, et al. v. Thelma P. Quinto, et al.
In her letter-compaint, complainant alleged that the RTC, Branch 40 issued an Order dated 6 January 1995 in Civil Case No. 94-00321-D, the dispositive portion of which reads:
The Order dated 6 January 1995 became final and executory and a writ of execution was issued but the Sheriff failed to implement the writ. Meanwhile, the Presiding Judge of Branch 40 inhibited himself from the case and the same was raffled to respondent judge. On 27 December 1995, complainant's counsel filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution and to cite plaintiffs in contempt of court. On 20 May 1996, complainant filed a motion for early resolution of her motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution.
Complainant further alleged that respondent judge invited her to his chamber and told her that he would grant the motion for issuance of alias writ of execution if she would "give some consideration or multa." Considering the "unreasonable delay" in resolving the motion, she allegedly acceded and gave respondent judge P3,000.
On 18 September 1996, or more than eight months after the filing of the motion, respondent judge issued an Order granting the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution. Complainant claims she went to respondent's chamber and gave him P2,000. Meanwhile, plaintiff Loreto Aquino filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. Thereafter, respondent judge issued on 30 September 1996 the Order holding in abeyance the implementation of the alias writ of execution pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
On 6 November 1996, respondent judge, acting on the motion for reconsideration, issued an order recalling the Order dated 18 September 1996. Complainant now questions the issuance of this order stressing that while respondent judge spent eight months to resolve the motion for alias writ of execution, it took him only 12 days to recall it. She avers that monetary consideration was behind the reversal of the order.
In his Comment, respondent judge denied complainant's accusation that he received money from her, neither did he ask for it. Respondent judge averred that he never talked to complainant. He further argued that he reconsidered the Order of 18 September 1996 because it was not in accordance with law.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its Report, opined that complainant's charge of gross ignorance of the law must be dismissed as there was no evidence to prove that respondent judge issued the Order of 18 September 1996 because of any improper or corrupt motives. Complainant further failed to adduce evidence to prove the charge of corruption.
As regards the allegation of delay in acting on the motion for the issuance of alias writ of execution, the OCA found from the records that respondent judge acted on the motion after eight months from its filing. Respondent judge did not explain such delay. The OCA recommended that respondent judge be held liable to pay a fine of P5,000 for such delay.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
It is not disputed that the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution was resolved more than eight months after it was filed. Respondent judge did not give any explanation for the delay. Clearly, respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in resolving the motion. Section 15(1), Article VIII[1] of the Constitution expressly mandates that cases or matters before the lower courts must be resolved within three months from date of submission. Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct[2] likewise provides that judges perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. And even prior to its amendment, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct[3] mandated that judges should dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. These rules recognize the right of every litigant to a speedy disposition of cases.[4]
Judges have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in resolving motions violates the norm of judicial conduct and is administratively sanctionable. Judges must decide cases and resolve motions 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 cases and undermines the people's faith in the judiciary.[5]
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge. Section 11 of the same Rule imposes the following sanctions for those guilty of less serious charge: (1) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or (2) a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. Considering that the amendment in Rule 140 took effect only on 1 October 2001 or after the subject Order of respondent judge was issued, the same cannot apply in the present case. We find the recommendation of the OCA of a fine of P5,000 to be appropriate in light of the Court's ruling inAslarona v. Echavez.[6]
The Court further notes that respondent judge compulsorily retired on 19 November 2004 and in the Resolution dated 27 April 2005 in A.M. No. 11900-Ret. (Compulsory Retirement Benefits under RA 910 of Hon. Crispin C. Laron, Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan City), the Court approved the release of his retirement benefits but withheld the amount of P100,000 to answer for any adverse decision the Court may later impose upon him relative to the five administrative complaints filed against him.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Judge Crispin C. Laron guilty of delay in resolving the motion submitted to him and we FINE him P5,000 to be deducted from the amount withheld per Resolution of 27 April 2005 in A.M. No. 11900-Ret.
SO ORDERED. (Perez, J., no part; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated additional member)
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per Raffle dated 6 January 2010), Axturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 14th day of April, 2010.
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2105 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 97-278-RTJ): THELMA P. QUINTO v. JUDGE CRISPIN C. LARON, Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan City
Complainant Thelma P. Quinto (complainant) charges respondent Judge Crispin C. Laron (respondent judge) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 44, Dagupan City with graft, violation of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and gross ignorance of the law relative to Civil Case No. 94-00321-D entitled Loreto Aquino, et al. v. Thelma P. Quinto, et al.
In her letter-compaint, complainant alleged that the RTC, Branch 40 issued an Order dated 6 January 1995 in Civil Case No. 94-00321-D, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, there being no legal impediment, defendant Thelma P. Quinto be allowed to assume office and draw her salary as a member of the Sangguniang Bayan of Mapandan, Pangasinan, starting September 28, 1994 when she took her oath of office and qualified as such.
The Order dated 6 January 1995 became final and executory and a writ of execution was issued but the Sheriff failed to implement the writ. Meanwhile, the Presiding Judge of Branch 40 inhibited himself from the case and the same was raffled to respondent judge. On 27 December 1995, complainant's counsel filed a motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution and to cite plaintiffs in contempt of court. On 20 May 1996, complainant filed a motion for early resolution of her motion for issuance of an alias writ of execution.
Complainant further alleged that respondent judge invited her to his chamber and told her that he would grant the motion for issuance of alias writ of execution if she would "give some consideration or multa." Considering the "unreasonable delay" in resolving the motion, she allegedly acceded and gave respondent judge P3,000.
On 18 September 1996, or more than eight months after the filing of the motion, respondent judge issued an Order granting the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution. Complainant claims she went to respondent's chamber and gave him P2,000. Meanwhile, plaintiff Loreto Aquino filed a motion for reconsideration of the order. Thereafter, respondent judge issued on 30 September 1996 the Order holding in abeyance the implementation of the alias writ of execution pending the resolution of the motion for reconsideration.
On 6 November 1996, respondent judge, acting on the motion for reconsideration, issued an order recalling the Order dated 18 September 1996. Complainant now questions the issuance of this order stressing that while respondent judge spent eight months to resolve the motion for alias writ of execution, it took him only 12 days to recall it. She avers that monetary consideration was behind the reversal of the order.
In his Comment, respondent judge denied complainant's accusation that he received money from her, neither did he ask for it. Respondent judge averred that he never talked to complainant. He further argued that he reconsidered the Order of 18 September 1996 because it was not in accordance with law.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), in its Report, opined that complainant's charge of gross ignorance of the law must be dismissed as there was no evidence to prove that respondent judge issued the Order of 18 September 1996 because of any improper or corrupt motives. Complainant further failed to adduce evidence to prove the charge of corruption.
As regards the allegation of delay in acting on the motion for the issuance of alias writ of execution, the OCA found from the records that respondent judge acted on the motion after eight months from its filing. Respondent judge did not explain such delay. The OCA recommended that respondent judge be held liable to pay a fine of P5,000 for such delay.
We agree with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
It is not disputed that the motion for the issuance of an alias writ of execution was resolved more than eight months after it was filed. Respondent judge did not give any explanation for the delay. Clearly, respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in resolving the motion. Section 15(1), Article VIII[1] of the Constitution expressly mandates that cases or matters before the lower courts must be resolved within three months from date of submission. Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct[2] likewise provides that judges perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. And even prior to its amendment, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct[3] mandated that judges should dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. These rules recognize the right of every litigant to a speedy disposition of cases.[4]
Judges have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in resolving motions violates the norm of judicial conduct and is administratively sanctionable. Judges must decide cases and resolve motions 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 cases and undermines the people's faith in the judiciary.[5]
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge. Section 11 of the same Rule imposes the following sanctions for those guilty of less serious charge: (1) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or (2) a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. Considering that the amendment in Rule 140 took effect only on 1 October 2001 or after the subject Order of respondent judge was issued, the same cannot apply in the present case. We find the recommendation of the OCA of a fine of P5,000 to be appropriate in light of the Court's ruling inAslarona v. Echavez.[6]
The Court further notes that respondent judge compulsorily retired on 19 November 2004 and in the Resolution dated 27 April 2005 in A.M. No. 11900-Ret. (Compulsory Retirement Benefits under RA 910 of Hon. Crispin C. Laron, Regional Trial Court, Branch 44, Dagupan City), the Court approved the release of his retirement benefits but withheld the amount of P100,000 to answer for any adverse decision the Court may later impose upon him relative to the five administrative complaints filed against him.
WHEREFORE, we find respondent Judge Crispin C. Laron guilty of delay in resolving the motion submitted to him and we FINE him P5,000 to be deducted from the amount withheld per Resolution of 27 April 2005 in A.M. No. 11900-Ret.
SO ORDERED. (Perez, J., no part; Leonardo-De Castro, J., designated additional member)
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per Raffle dated 6 January 2010), Axturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 14th day of April, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Sec. 15(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, and unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
[2] A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, promulgated on 27 April 2004 and took effect on 1 June 2004.
[3] Effective 20 October 1989.
[4] Mina v. Mupas, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2067, 18 June 2008, 555 SCRA 44.
[5] China Banking Corporation v. Janolo, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-07-2035, 12 June 2008, 554 SCRA 295.
[6] 459 Phil. 167, 171-172 (2003).
