ChanRobles Virtual law Library

<[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1956-RTJ. <]

vs. SANTOS <

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 26 2004.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1956-RTJ (Dra. Avelina T. Poblete and Mrs. Basilisa O. Tan vs. Judge Ruth C. Santos, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo City.)

RESOLUTION

Considering the Report dated February 20, 2004 submitted by Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez, to wit:

... In their separate unverified letters dated 29 September 2003, Dra. Avelina T. Poblete and Mrs. Basilisa O. Tan complain about the actuations of Judge Ruth C. Santos, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo City during the promulgation of Criminal Case Nos. 97-13848 to 49. The cases were for Estafa through Falsification of Public Documents. The herein complainants were the accused in the subject cases.

The separate complaints contained practically the same allegations. Complainants aver that Judge Santos was not prepared to render her decision at the scheduled date of promulgation. The promulgation of the decisions in the subject cases were allegedly scheduled initially on 26 August 2003 but it was reset to 23 September 2003 due to the seminar conducted for judges. Thereafter, it was reset again to 29 September 2003.

They alleged that on 29 September 2003, Judge Santos was still not prepared to render her decisions. She allegedly approached the lawyer of the complainants and stated "let us reset the promulgation to another day because I am not feeling well." The promulgation, however, pushed through because of the insistence of their lawyer.

They stated that they were the last in the list of cases to be heard on that day. Thirty-nine (39) cases were scheduled for that day. At around 12:30 in the afternoon, Judge Santos allegedly admitted that the decisions have not yet been printed, showing to them the diskette containing the decisions. They contend that this actuation of respondent judge only shows that even at the last minute, she was not prepared to render the decisions. Complainants felt that by this action they were deprived of the true meaning of justice.

Complainants also alleged that Judge Santos was biased against them and partial to their sister, Juanita O. Javier, the complainant in the subject criminal cases. Respondent judge allegedly gave more weight to the testimony given by the private criminologist over the examination report submitted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).

Complainants surmised that this partiality of respondent judge is a result of their refusal to enter into an amicable settlement with their sister. They alleged that Judge Santos insisted that the properties left by their deceased sister, Dra. Brigida Omana, be divided equally amongst them. Judge Santos allegedly stated that "walang mananalo at matatalo sa kasong ito, at Hindi ninyo madadala sa langit ang mga property na iyan." Complainants alleged that they refused to settle with their sister because of the humiliation caused on them and their families by these cases.

Mrs. Basilisa O. Tan also complained that on 23 September 2003, they were summoned by Judge Santos to her office and in front of many people, respondent judge stated "asan na yung dalawang matanda... pumasok kayo uli dito sa opisina." She alleged that Judge Santos was tactless in her statement because she could have just stated "asan na yung dalawang magkapatid."

Complainants further narrated that during the promulgation, the counsel for the private complainant was absent and only the accused (herein complainants) and their counsel were present. They stated that only the dispositive portions of the decisions were read by the branch clerk of court and respondent judge was not in the courtroom at the time of the reading of the decisions.

In her comment dated 3 November 2003, respondent Judge Santos strongly opposed and denied the allegations in the complaint. She alleged that the promulgation of judgment was initially scheduled on 26 August 2003 at 8:30 in the morning, but had to be rescheduled because of the seminar of judges at Tagaytay City. The next scheduled date of promulgation was set on 23 September 2003.

Considering that the cases were principally between two sisters, she thought it prudent to avail of a last opportunity to exert efforts to reconcile them. As a matter of course, she stated that one of them would win and the other one would have to lose and that both parties could not be victors in the same case. She maintained that a judgment of conviction will logically aggravate and/or intensify the animosity between the sisters, and further drive the wedge between them deeper. She submits that every magistrate or any officer of the court is duty bound not only to bring justice to the parties but likewise bring peace to the litigants. She alleged that the cases were inherited from her predecessors and she only observed and witnessed the testimony of the last witness for the defense. She surmised that it is but logical to encourage the parties to settle the matter in order to keep their family intact so they could live a harmonious life which will benefit their children and grandchildren.

On 23 September 2003, when the parties came to her court, respondent judge allegedly suggested that the feuding sisters talk inside her chambers. She allegedly allowed them to talk but never did she force a settlement. She contends that accused Basilisa O. Tan was, however, adamant and stubbornly refused a settlement. At that time, and even the day before, the decisions had already been prepared, although not yet printed. She asserts that her decisions are always printed on the day they are to be promulgated, to prevent any leakage. She submits that the allegation of the accused that she told them that they lost in the case is an outright lie for that statement would already give away an idea of what the judgment would be, which is inconsistent with her court policy.

With the end in view of re-establishing family solidarity, as a last ditch effort to save the relationship of the sisters, or whatever is left of it, she allegedly gave the parties another week to think things over, to which the sisters' respective counsel agreed. Consequently, the promulgation was reset to 29 September 2003, and she made it clear that if there will be no settlement, the promulgation shall proceed.

She averred that on 29 September 2003, she had flu accompanied by severe coughing and chest and back pains. Instead of taking a leave of absence, however, she reported for work because of the many cases of detention prisoners scheduled for that day, and because of the promulgation of judgment reset to that day. She maintains that it is not true that she again sought to cancel the promulgation. She denies talking to the counsel of the accused for a resetting of the promulgation. She stated that even before the start of the proceedings that morning, her court interpreter, Ferdinand Sundiam, already made an announcement that she was sick but will hear and proceed with the arraignment in cases involving detention prisoners, which as a matter of policy and practice, have always been given priority.

Out of the thirty-eight (38) cases scheduled that day, 22 cases involving detention prisoners were heard and completed at past 12:00 noon. At this time, she was allegedly too weak due to exhaustion. Nevertheless, she alleged that the promulgation of judgment proceeded without much ado and past 12:00 in the afternoon.

With regard to the allegation that she has an interest over the properties involved, she stressed that she does not know the complainant or the accused and categorically denied the allegation. Her sole purpose was mainly to prevent further animosity between the sisters.

She contends that the decisions were based on the evidence presented by both parties. If indeed the accused secured the services of the handwriting expert from the NBI, this witness was not presented to rebut the testimony of the handwriting expert presented by the prosecution.

With regard to the allegation that she referred to the complainant and the accused as "matanda," respondent says that there was definitely no offense meant or intended.

Likewise, she maintains that when she called the parties to enter her chambers, she did not give any preference to anyone of them, but merely called them to give them an opportunity to talk with each other.

She prays for the dismissal of the complaint, which according to her is obviously biased against her, proceeding as it does from disgruntled litigants. She maintains that the complaints substantially contain allegations that are materially inaccurate, narrating some events which did not, however, transpire or occur.

EVALUATION: We find the complaints filed against Judge Santos bereft of merit. At the outset, it can be observed that the administrative complaints proceeded from disgruntled litigants who were convicted by respondent judge. We find nothing irregular in the actuations of respondent judge.

Some judges have the policy of not printing their decisions until the last minute, to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of their decisions. The fact that the decisions were not yet printed in the early morning of 29 September 2003, the date of the promulgation, did not mean that respondent judge was ill-prepared to render the decisions. As claimed by respondent judge, the decisions were already prepared as early as 23 September 2003 but the same have not yet been printed.

With regard to the allegation that the respondent called the accused and complainant "matanda," we likewise find nothing offensive in the judge's actuation. As stated by respondent judge, if she indeed addressed them as such, no offense was meant or intended. Moreover, we find nothing wrong with her statement because as stated in the complaint of Mrs. Basilisa O. Tan, she is already 70 years old and as such, could indeed be considered as "matanda."

With respect to the occurrences during the promulgation, the affidavit of Fernando Sundiam, court interpreter of RTC, Branch 72, Antipolo City, corroborated the statements of respondent judge. Mr. Sundiam reported that he announced that Judge Santos would proceed with the promulgation and he asked the parties whether they wanted the decision read in its [entirety]. The counsel for the accused allegedly opted for the reading of the dispositive portion only because it was already past noon of that day.

Anent the allegation that Judge Santos gave credence to the testimony of the expert witness from the prosecution instead of the NBI report, we find this to be within her judicial discretion and beyond the administrative authority of this Office to pass upon. As stated in the case of Godinez vs. Alano, 303 SCRA 259, "In order to merit a disciplinary sanction, the error or mistake committed by a judge should be patent, gross, malicious, deliberate or done in bad faith, and absent a clear showing that the judge has acted arrantly, the issue becomes judicial in character and would not properly warrant the imposition of administrative punishment."

Finally, there was no showing that Judge Santos, in advising the parties to enter into an amicable settlement, was moved by bad faith, gain or ill motive. As stated in her comment, it is "with the end in view of re�establishing family solidarity."

RECOMMENDATION: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended that the instant administrative complaints filed against Judge Ruth C. Santos, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo City, be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.

with Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recommending approval thereof, and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with the facts and the law, the Court approves and adopts the same.

ACCORDINGLY, the instant administrative complaints against Judge Ruth C. Santos are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA

Executive Officer

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011