ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. No. CA-05-41.� January 11, 2005]
SESBRE�O vs. FERNANDO
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JAN 11 2005 .
A.M. No. CA-05-41 (Peter L. Sesbre�o vs. Justices Remedios A. Salazar-Fernando, Ruben T. Reyes and Edgardo F. Sundiam, all Members of the Court of Appeals.)
This pertains to a sworn complaint dated December 8, 2003 of Mr. Peter L. Sesbre�o against Court of Appeals (CA) Associate Justices Remedios Salazar Fernando, Ruben T. Reyes and Edgardo F. Sundiam for violation of Article VIII Section 15 paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Constitution, [1] cralaw requiring collegiate courts below the Supreme Court (such as the CA) to decide or resolve all cases within 12 months from dates of submission for decision, and in case of delay, that a certified explanation be attached to the record and served upon the parties.
Complainant alleged that CA-G.R. No. CV-48909: Raul H. Sesbre�o, Plaintiff-Appellant, vs. Juan P. Coromina (as substituted by Anita Coromina, Elizabeth Coromina and Rosiemarie Coromina), Vicente E. Garcia (as substitutes by Edgar John Garcia), Felipe Constantino , Ronald Arcilla, Norberto Abellana, Demetrio Balicha, Angelita Lhuillier, Jose E. Garcia and Visayan Electric Company [VECO], Defendants-Appellees, was submitted for decision on August 28, 1997 but respondent Justices' decision penned by Justice Salazar-Fernando against plaintiff-appellant Raul H. Sesbre�o was issued only on March 10, 2003, long after the twelve-month mandatory deadline of the Constitution, without the requisite certified explanation for the delay. [2] cralaw
Respondent Justices denied having violated the Constitution.� They also question complainant's legal personality to file the sworn complaint as he was neither a party nor counsel in CA-G.R. No. CV-48909. [3] cralaw
Indeed, we find that complainant had no cause of action against respondent CA Justices.
Respondent Justices did not violate Article VIII Section 15 paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Constitution.� The CA reorganization and re-raffle of cases got in the way of the speedy disposition of CA-G.R. No. CV-48909.� We note that the case was submitted for decision on August 28, 1997 by the CA Thirteenth Division which was then composed of then Justices Cancio C. Garcia, [4] cralaw Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis and Artemio G. Tuquero. [5] cralaw At that time, respondent Justices Salazar-Fernando and Sundiam were not yet Members of the Court of Appeals.� Justice Salazar-Fernando who was appointed to the Court of Appeals on May 20, 1999, took her oath and assumed her post on May 25, 1999. [6] cralaw On the other hand, Justice Sundiam was appointed to the Court of Appeals only on April 8, 2002. [7] cralaw
Although the case was declared submitted for decision on August 26, 1997, it was raffled to Justice Ricardo P. Galvez (now retired) for study and report on October 17, 1997.� On August 5, 1998, it was re-raffled to Justice Bernardo P. Abesamis (now retired). [8] cralaw Throughout the time that the case was re-raffled to Justices Galvez and Abesamis for ponencia, respondent Justices were not members of the Divisions to which the two formerly designated ponentes belonged. [9] cralaw
Eventually, CA-G.R. No. CV-48909 was assigned by raffle on March 1, 2002 to Justice Salazar-Fernando who received the rollo and records of the case on April 24, 2002.� She penned the decision on March 10, 2003. [10] cralaw
All told, respondent Justices were not guilty of delay in rendering their decision.� They were under no duty to issue a certified explanation for any supposed delay in such decision, as this properly pertained to the CA Presiding Justice.
WHEREFORE, the affidavit-complaint against Court of Appeals Associate Justice Remedios Salazar Fernando, Ruben T. Reyes and Edgardo F. Sundiam for violation of Article VIII Section 15 paragraphs (1) and (3) of the Constitution is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effecivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of the 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.
x x x���� x x x���� x x x
(3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties.� The certification shall state why a decision or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
[2] cralaw Affidavit-Complaint; Rollo, pp.5-6.
[3] cralaw Comment; Rollo, pp. 12-17.
[4] cralaw now Associate Justice of the Supreme Court.
[5] cralaw Annex "A" of the Affidavit-Complaint; Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Report; Rollo, pp. 7 and 96-97.
[6] cralaw Exhibit "1" of Comment, Rollo, p.18-21.
[7] cralaw Exhibit "3" of Comment, Rollo, p. 26.
[8] cralaw Comment; Rollo, pp. 12-17.
[9] cralaw Exhibit "2" and "2-a" of Comment; Rollo, pp. 22-25.
[10] cralaw Comment; Rollo, pp. 14-16.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
