ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. MTJ-01-1343.July 16, 2001]

OCAD vs. JUDGE JOVELLANOS

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JUL 16 2001.

A.M. No. MTJ-01-1343(Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos [Formerly Administrative Matter No 00-4-64-MCTC (Inhibition of Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos, MCTC, Alcala, Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. A-2532)].)

On January 1, 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received the Order of Inhibition, dated November 29, 1999, of Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Alcala Pangasinan in Criminal Case No. A-2532, entitled People of the Philippines vs. Fe Peregrino y Magno. Said order was indorsed to the OCA by Executive Judge Rosario Cruz, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Villasis, Pangasinan.

It appeared, however, that Judge Jovellanos had likewise issued an Order of Inhibition, dated September22, 1998, in the same case. Thus, the Court, in our Resolution of May 29, 2000, required Judge Jovellanos to explain the reason for the delay in the transmittal of said order of inhibition to Executive Judge Cruz.

In compliance therewith, Judge Jovellanos, in his Letter, dated June 21, 2000, explained that the delay was due to his old age and weakened state of health. He averred that he suffered several mild strokes due to hypertension and is undergoing rehabilitative therapy up to the present. He undertook to accomplish his work before his retirement.

The Court then referred the matter to the OCA for its evaluation, report and recommendation. In its Memorandum, dated August 22, 2000, the OCA reported that "[a]lthough Judge Jovellanos inhibited himself from the entire proceedings of the case, it took him more than thirteen (13) months to issue an Order, dated November 29, 1999 requesting Hon. Rosario C. Cruz, Executive Judge, RTC, Villasis, Pangasinan, to designate another Judge to hear the aforementioned case." (Rollo, p. 20)

The OCA likewise found that Judge Jovellanos never incurred any leave of absence from 1998 up to August 2000. According to the OCA, this was quite improbable considering that Judge Jovellanos claimed that he suffered mild strokes and was undergoing therapy.

Upon recommendation of the OCA, the Court, in our Resolution, dated September 11, 2000, required Judge Jovellanos to explain why no administrative charge should be filed against him for the delay in the transmission of his Order of Inhibition, dated September 22, 1998.

By way of explanation, in his Letter of October 4, 2000, Judge Jovellanos reiterated that the delay was due to his "poor state of health" and submitted a Medical Certificate, dated August 21, 2000, signed by Dr. Constante Parayno attesting to his illness.

Forthwith, the Court again referred the matter to the OCA for its evaluation, report and recommendation. The OCA submitted its Memorandum, dated January 8, 2001, stating that:

x x x Considering Judge Jovellanos' admission of his delay in the transmittal of his order, his negligence is sufficiently established. His belated submission of a medical certificate will not reinforce his claim of a "not-so-well state of health". Furthermore said medical certificate does not explain why he did not incur a single leave for almost three (3) years while Judge Jovellanos admits as to have suffered several mild strokes and is undergoing rehabilitative therapy.

The explanation and evidence proferred by Judge Jovellanos are not enough to exonerate him from responsibility, taking into account his admission of the purported delay. (Id., at 39)

The OCA then recommended that Judge Jovellanos be reprimanded for being remiss of his duties. The Court agrees with the OCA. Indeed, the record shows that the delay in the transmittal of Judge Jovellanos' order of inhibition was due solely to his negligence. As a result of this delay, Criminal Case No. A-2532, which is merely an oral defamation case, has dragged on for several years. Judge Jovellanos' omission clearly constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Rule 3.05 thereof, which enjoins judges to, among others, "dispose of the court's business promptly."

WHEREFORE, the Court Resolved to REPRIMAND Judge Eduardo U. Jovellanos, MCTC, Alcala, Pangasinan, for negligence in the performance of his duties with a STERN WARNING that repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE