ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[ A.M. No. 99-655-RTJ. July 28, 1999]
PROS. ROBERT M. VISBAL vs. JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this court dated JUL 28, 1999.
A.M. No. 99-655-RTJ (Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal vs. Judge Frisco T. Lilagan, Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Tacloban City.)
This refers to the verified complaint dated December 2, 1998 of Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal against Judge Frisco T. Lilagan, for alleged Falsification of Certificates of Service in connection with Criminal Case No. 95-07-229, entitled "People vs. Gil Ty, et al."
Complainant Visbal alleges that respondent Judge Lilagan falsified his certificates of service for the months of March, April, May, June, July and August 1998; that respondent must have received his salaries and allowances during such period. He claims that such acts constitute an offense analogous to that of Article 174, par. 2, of the Revised Penal Code, which reads:
"Art 174. False Medical certificates, false certificates of merits of service, etc. - the penalties of arresto mayor in its maximum period to prision correccional in its minimum period and a fine not to excess P1,000 pesos shall be imposed upon:
x x x
"2. Any public officer who shall issue a false certificate of merit or service, good conduct or similar circumstances."
He narrates that respondent judge issued an Order dated 17 February 1998 granting the motion of accused Noel de Guzman to file a Motion to Dismiss based on a Demurrer to Evidence within a period of fifteen (15) days from the date of the Order. For failure of the accused to comply with the said Order, complainant, as public prosecutor, filed an urgent Motion to Set Case for Hearing on March 6, 1998. The accused filed his Motion for Demurrer to Evidence only on March 16, 1998 and an Opposition thereto was filed by the complainant on March 25, 1998. The respondent judge issued an Order dated September 2, 1998, finally resolving the Urgent Motion to Set Case For Hearing. In the said Order, complainant claims that respondent judge admitted that there was unreasonable delay of the resolution of the issue for a period of six (6) months.
With the averments of the complaint and its annexes, the complainant believes that there was a pending motion for resolution by the respondent for the period from March 1998 up to September 2, 1998 and that this is in contrast to the certificates of service submitted by the respondent.
In his comment dated March 16, 1999, respondent judge claims that the requirement for Certificates of Service referred to is pursuant to the Supreme Court Circular which requires all judges to certify that they have no pending motions to be resolved for the particular month. According to him, judges are given a time frame of ninety (90) days within which to resolve pending motions but when a motion is submitted for resolution, say in March, he has ninety (90) days within which to resolve the same and the said period would naturally go beyond the month when it was submitted for resolution. He continues that what the certificate of Service means is that there is no motion still unresolved beyond the 90-day reglementary period. He claims that he is not required to resolve the motion on the very month it was submitted for resolution nor the following month.
Respondent judge narrates that the records of the case consist of more than five hundred (500) pages excluding the transcript of stenographic notes of the testimonies of no less than four (4) prosecution witnesses; that since the motion was a demurrer to evidence, he could not resolve it without first going over all the pages of the records and transcripts; and, that furthermore, during the period from March 25, 1998 up to September 2, 1998, he had a thirty (30) day forced leave; he spent ten (10) days of his official time at the Supreme Court; he spent eight (8) days attending seminars and conferences in connection with his judicial functions; there were five (5) holidays during the period; and a period of one (1) week for transfer of all the records of the court to the present office which the respondent recouped from Judge Ramos of Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Burauen, Leyte.
He contends that he was not al fault for the delay of the resolution of the motion. He claims that he was on time because under the regulation he is given ninety (90) days or three (3) months within which to resolve the motion; that in the aforementioned case, the motion was submitted for resolution on March 25, 1998; that he resolved it on September 2, 1998, i.e., more than five (5) months form the time the motion was submitted for resolution; that the three (3) months of the five (5) months span should be credited or deducted from the five (5) months period; and, that what remains is the two (2) months or sixty (60) day period during which he was out of his post either on official time or on leave or holidays.
Respondent claims that if we give credit to all the interference that impeded him form resolving the motion, he was earlier than that prescribed.
In a Memorandum addressed to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that respondent Judge Frisco T. Lilagan be fined in the amount of One Thousand (P1,000) Pesos payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice, for gross inefficiency.
The Court agrees with, and adopt the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.
Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide within the period fixed by law. Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters within three (3) months from date of submission for decision or final resolution. Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitute gross inefficiency. In A.M. No. 97-1-08-MTC (Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Municipal Trial Court, Sibulan, Negros Oriental), a fine of One Thousand Pesos was imposed on the Judge for his failure to act seasonably in Criminal Case Nos. 2276, 2491 and Civil Case No. 336.
In the instant case, when respondent was prevented to resolve the motion by his forced leave, and other official transactions, it was incumbent upon him to request this Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, for additional time to resolve the said motion which he could not seasonably act upon and decide.1 [Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Municipal Trial Court, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, 282 SCRA 463; Guinto vs. Lucero, 261 SCRA 1.] The records show that in the subject criminal case, the motion was submitted for resolution on March 25, 1998. Respondent did not resolve the pending motion until September 2, 1998, i.e., for more than five (5) months and respondents did not request for additional time to resolve them.
The Office of the Court Administrator reported that the Court's records show that during the time that subject motions were pending in respondent judge's court, he did not state in his certificate of service that he has pending matters which remained unresolved beyond the 90-day period. It has been held by this Court that a judge who falsifies his Certificate of Service is administratively liable for serious misconduct and inefficiency under the Rules of Court and likewise criminally liable under the Revised Penal Code.2 [Enriquez vs. Camarista, 280 SCRA 1; Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, 248 SCRA 5.]
Considering, however, that there is no showing that respondent judge was impelled by some ulterior ends or ill motives or willful intention to prejudice a party-litigant, his administrative liability for the delay in resolving the said motions, is mitigated thereby. His failure to resolve the motion due to his forced leave, official transactions, seminars, conferences, transfer of records to the new office also mitigates his administrative liability. Thus, a fine of P1,000, as recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, is in our opinion commensurate.
WHEREFORE, Judge Frisco T. Lilagan is FINED in the amount of One Thousand (P1,000) Pesos payable to this Court within ten (10) days from notice, with warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
