ChanRobles Virtual law Library

chanrobles.com - PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT RESOLUTIONS - ON-LINE

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1829. July 26, 2006]

RE: CORAZON VDA. DE LOPEZ v. JUDGE ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 59, SAN CARLOS CITY, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL

Third Division

Sirs/Mesdames:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated JULY 26, 2006 .

A.M. No. RTJ-04-1829 (Re: Corazon Vda. de Lopez v. Judge Roberto S. Javellana, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 59, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental.)

x ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- x

RESOLUTION

This is an administrative case against Judge Roberto S. Javellana ("respondent Judge"), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Branch 59 ("trial court"), on grounds of abuse of power, neglect of duty, dishonesty, falsification of certificate of service, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Corazon Vda. de Lopez ("complainant") is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. X-185 [1] cralaw pending before respondent Judge's sala. In her sworn letter-complaint dated 11 September 2001, complainant stated that the case has been "pending for nearly thirty years" since its filing in 1972, but was still in the pre-trial stage. The records show that the Notice of Pre-trial for Civil Case No. X-185 was dated as early as 26 March 1979. Since presiding over the trial court in 1993, respondent Judge has issued several orders rescheduling the pre-trial, as follows:

1. Order dated 1 December 1994, resetting pre-trial on 8 February 1995;

2. Order dated 8 February 1995, resetting pre-trial "for the last time" on 19 April 1995;

3. Order dated 19 April 1995, resetting pre-trial "for the last time" on 15 June 1995;

4. Order dated 15 June 1995, resetting pre-trial on 9 August 1995;

5.� Order dated 17 October 1995, resetting pre-trial on 14 December 1995 "to give [the presiding Judge] ample time to familiarize himself with the facts x x x;"

6.� Order dated 7 March 1996, resetting pre-trial on 23 May 1996 on the ground that respondent Judge is "not feeling well and is not in a position to hold trial today;"

7. Order dated 1 April 1998, resetting pre-trial on 27 May 1998 on the ground that respondent Judge "has been on sick leave;"

8. Order dated 15 September 1998 resetting pre-trial on 11 November 1998 for "lack of material time;"

9. Order dated 14 December 1998 resetting pre-trial on 4 February 1999 because respondent Judge "has been on sick leave;"

10. Order dated 6 September 1999, resetting pre-trial on 27 October 1999 because respondent Judge "has gone on sick leave;"

11. Order dated 6 October 2000, resetting pre-trial on 13 December 2000 because respondent Judge "will be on vacation leave from October 9 to 20, 2000;"

12. Order dated 4 December 2000 resetting pre-trial on 15 March 2001 because respondent Judge "will be on vacation leave from December 5 to 15, 2000;"

13. Order dated 7 March 2001 resetting pre-trial on 7 June 2001 because respondent Judge "will be out on official business from March 12-16,2001;"

14. Order dated 6 June 2001 resetting pre-trial on 15 August 2001 because respondent Judge "will attend the Judicial Administration Seminar in Cebu City on June 7-8, 2001."

According to complainant, the issuance of these orders by respondent Judge constitutes incompetence and amounts to a violation of Supreme Court circulars requiring courts to strictly enforce the provisions of the Rules of Court on the matter of adjournments and postponements. Complainant alleged that her counsel often did not receive notices of postponements from the trial court on time. Particularly, the order of respondent Judge resetting the 7 June 2001 pre-trial was personally handed to her counsel only on the very day of the hearing, when she and counsel were already in court.

Complainant accused respondent Judge of dishonesty in falsely claiming to be on official business or on official leave whenever he would reset a hearing. She alleged that at around 7:00 a.m. of 7 June 2001, she saw respondent Judge strolling at the marketplace of San Carlos City, and later at around 9:00 a.m., entering his office at the Hall of Justice.

In its 1st Indorsement dated 29 October 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent Judge to comment on the complaint.

In his Comment dated 12 December 2001, respondent Judge described the allegations in the complaint as baseless, meant only to discredit him and to "cause aspersions on his honesty and integrity, impartiality and competence x x x." [2] cralaw He maintained that his vacation leave from 5-15 December 2000 was duly approved by the OCA. [3] cralaw

On the trial court's alleged failure to notify parties, respondent Judge claimed that he always instructed his staff to call parties with telephone numbers to inform them of postponements. He further claimed that he sometimes had to go on emergency leave for medical treatment since he was already 66 years old and suffering from many ailments such as a cyst in his kidney, high uric acid, and hypertension. [4] cralaw

On the charge that he was actually in San Carlos City on 7 June 2001, respondent Judge explained that complainant must have seen him drop by his office in the morning before he left for Cebu City.

The OCA found the delay in the proceedings of Civil Case No. X-185 mostly attributable to the parties who kept on filing different pleadings and motions. The OCA also found that complainant failed to prove her charges of incompetence, bias, and partiality.

Upon verification, the OCA learned that respondent Judge's orders canceling the pre-trial scheduled on 17 October 2000 and 15 March 2001, on the ground that he would be on "vacation leave" and "on official business," were not supported by records of the Court. A certification from the Leave Division, Office of Administrative Services (OAS), stated that respondent Judge filed an application for leave of absence only for the periods 5-15 December 2000; 26 December 2000; and 19-21 March 2001. [5] cralaw

On 20 November 2002, this Court issued a resolution (1) dismissing the charges of incompetence, bias, and partiality for lack of basis; (2) requiring respondent Judge to prove that he filed applications for leave of absence for 17 October 2000 and 15 March 2001; and (3) directing respondent Judge in the meantime to avail of all procedural remedies to secure the expeditious trial and disposition of Civil Case No. X-185.

On 26 March 2003, we referred the matter for investigation, report, and recommendation to the OCA, with Honorable Conrado M. Molina ("Investigating Officer Molina") as Hearing Officer-Designate.

At the hearings conducted by Investigating Officer Molina, respondent Judge admitted that he did not hold office on 17 October 2000 and 15 March 2001. [6] cralaw Respondent Judge sought to justify his absences with the following documents:

(1) His Certificate of Service for October 2000 indicating that he was "On Official Business" for a court appearance in RTC, Iloilo, Branch 66, when sessions were not held. He clarified that the exact date of the hearing in Iloilo was 17 October 2000, but he forgot to write this date on the certificate.

(2)Transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of a 16 March 2001 hearing at the Court of Appeals of an administrative case [7] cralaw where respondent Judge appeared as respondent. Respondent Judge had to leave San Carlos City on 15 March 2001 to be in Manila in time for the hearing.

(3) Medical certificate dated 4 April 2003 declaring that respondent Judge was under medical care from 12-25 March 2003 for hyponatremia. It was during this confinement that he received the resolution of this Court dated 20 November 2000.

In his Report and Recommendation ("Report"), [8] cralaw Investigating Officer Molina cited Office Order No. 1, series of 1989 ("Office Order No. 1"), [9] cralaw which states that a Certificate of Appearance on Official Business may be issued to judges and court personnel traveling to the Supreme Court who, among others, "are required to appear as witnesses in criminal and/or administrative cases in connection with their official functions." The Report found respondent Judge to have violated Office Order No. 1, thus:

Sp. Proc. No. 99-057 of the RTC Branch 66, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, is neither a criminal nor administrative case. The respondent Judge's appearance in that case, not in obedience with a subpoena but upon the request of a party, had nothing to do with his official functions as a judge but to testify on the due execution of a Last Will and Testament ratified before him on March 6, 1974, long before his appointment to the judiciary in 1993.

x x x x

Verily, Judge Javellana's travel to Iloilo on October 17, 2000 was a private trip, not on official business. He should have secured permission from the Court Administrator before [appearing] in the RTC, Branch 56, Barotac Viejo, Iloilo, and filed an application for leave of absence for the above-mentioned date.

x x x x

Judge Javellana's travel to Manila on March 15, 2001 and attendance in the hearing of A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 in the Court of Appeals on March 16, 2001 were on official business. He was the respondent in the case, charged with grave misconduct in the performance of official duties and gross ignorance of the law.

The respondent should have secured thereafter a Certificate of Appearance from the Court Administrator regarding the trip.

Premises considered, the undersigned hereby respectfully recommends that:

1.��� For leaving his station on October 17, 2000 to attend the hearing of a case in another court outside his territorial jurisdiction in no way related to the discharge of his official functions without securing permission from the Court Administrator, the respondent Judge be ADMONISHED and warned that repetition of the same offense shall be more severely dealt with;

2.��� His absence on the abovementioned date be charged against his leave credits;

3.��� His travel to Manila on March 15, 2001 to appear as respondent and witness in the hearing of A.M. No. RTJ-00- 1601 in the Court of Appeals on March 16, 2001 be considered on official business; and

4.��� Respondent Judge be advised that henceforth, before leaving his station to attend to matters not related to the performance of official functions, he should first secure permission from the Court Administrator and file an application for leave of absence for the period of his travel; and in case of travel on official business outside his official station he should secure a Certificate of Appearance from the Court Administrator.

We fully sustain the findings of Investigating Officer Molina, but additionally examine the liability of respondent Judge for the apparent slow movement in the proceedings of complainant's case.

In the exercise of its administrative supervision over courts of the land, this Court constantly issues rules for the guidance of judges and court personnel with a view to maintaining an orderly administration of justice. Among these is the requirement of obtaining a Certificate of Appearance whenever they leave their station for reasons constituting "official business." In the case of judges, the certificate must be signed by the Court Administrator.

Office Order No. 1 is clear in enumerating the instances when a judge or court employee may be considered on "official business." Respondent Judge's absence on 17 October 2000, to appear as a witness before a probate court, clearly does not fall within any of them. If he had applied for a certificate of appearance on official business to excuse his absence, such application would have been denied. The proper course of action was to file an application for leave of absence with the Court Administrator, which respondent Judge failed to do.

While respondent Judge erred in claiming he was on official business on 17 October 2000, we are not ready to declare that such error was deliberate absent any evidence to this effect. An allegation of bad faith must be sufficiently proved, for bad faith is never presumed. [10] cralaw

On the other hand, the appearance of respondent Judge at the hearing on 16 March 2001 must be considered as official business. It was incumbent upon respondent Judge to attend the hearing of the administrative case filed against him in connection with his official functions. Nevertheless, he was required under the office order to secure a certificate of appearance from the Court Administrator attesting that he left his station to engage in an activity related to his official functions. Again, respondent Judge neglected to abide by the requirement.

Having settled the issue of respondent judge's absences on the two disputed dates, we now deal with the more important matter of the severe delay in the trial of Civil Case No. X-185. The case has dragged on for more than 30 years since its filing in 1972. From 1994 to 2001, respondent Judge issued at least 14 orders to reset the pre-trial alone.

Supreme Court Circular No. 13, [11] cralaw and Administrative Circulars No. 1-1988 [12] cralaw and No. 3-99, [13] cralaw enjoin all presiding judges to observe the guidelines in the administration of justice and repudiate manifestly dilatory tactics in order to avoid delays. To this end, judges (1) should scrupulously observe the periods prescribed by the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases; (2) actively manage the trial of their cases by rational calendaring; and (3) observe a rational policy on postponements so that the courts are not at the mercy of the lawyers and the parties. Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct further enjoins judges to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness." Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers its standard, and brings it into disrepute. [14] cralaw

Admittedly, the chronological order of events in complainant's case shows that the parties significantly contributed to the delay by their filing of numerous pleadings and motions. Even so, neither the parties nor their lawyers should be allowed to dictate the pace by which a case proceeds. Respondent Judge had the duty to expedite the proceedings by all means available to him, including the issuance of orders to force the parties to go to trial if a settlement could not be reached within a reasonable time.

Respondent Judge has previously been the subject of three similar disciplinary cases, wherein he was found guilty of undue delay in the rendition of judgments, gross misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service, and violation of Canons 1 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. [15] cralaw In the present case, the penalty of P20,000 fine is a proper sanction upon respondent Judge, this being his fourth administrative case.

WHEREFORE, we FINE Judge Roberto S. Javellana, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, San Carlos City, Branch 59, Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000) for violation of Supreme Court Office Order No. 1, Supreme Court Circular No. 13, and Administrative Circulars No. 1-1988 and No. 3-99. We DIRECT the Office of the Court Administrator to charge Judge Javellana's absence on 17 October 2000 against his leave credits.

We ORDER Judge Javellana to avail of all procedural remedies to secure the expeditious trial and disposition of Civil Case No. X-185.

Let copies of this Resolution be served personally on Judge Roberto S. Javellana, attached to his personal records in the Court, and furnished the Office of the Court Administrator for distribution to all courts in the Philippines and the Integrated Bar of the Philippines for its information and guidance.

SO ORDERED. Velasco, Jr., J., no part.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court


Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Case for partition, damages, and accounting entitled "Corazon D. Lopez v. Cesar Lopez et al."

[2] cralaw Rollo, p. 68.

[3] cralaw Id. at 60.

[4] cralaw Id. at 62.

[5] cralaw Id. at 102.

[6] cralaw TSN, 11 June 2003, pp. 4-5.

[7] cralaw Sibayan-Joaquin v. Judge Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601, 420 Phil. 584 (2001).

[8] cralaw Report and Recommendation dated 11 August 2003.

[9] cralaw "Re: OFFICIAL TRAVEL OF JUDGES AND PERSONNNEL OF THE LOWER COURTS," issued by Chief Justice Marcelo Fernan on 20 January 1989, whereby the following judges and court personnel traveling to the Supreme Court may be issued Certificates of Appearance on Official Business:

1. Those who come to the Supreme Court upon orders of the Court; the Justices; the Court Administrator and/or his deputies; and the Chief Administrative Officer and/or her assistants; and the Financial Officer and/or her assistant;

2. Those who are required to submit records of cases to the Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals, and the Sandiganbayan;

3. Those who are required to appear as witnesses in criminal and/or administrative cases in connection with their official functions;

4. Those who attend seminars, conferences, judicial dialogues, and training programs sponsored by the Supreme Court;

5. Those who come to the Supreme Court upon the advice of the Property Officer, to get typewriters, electric fans, filing cabinets, and other office equipment.

Those who come to the Supreme Court to requisition office supplies may be issued Certificate of Appearance on Official Business, provided that it shall be chargeable against the local funds.

x x x x (Emphasis supplied).

[10] cralaw Ang v. Judge Quilala, 444 Phil. 742 (2003).

[11] cralaw Issued by Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee on 1 July 1987.

[12] cralaw Issued by Chief Justice Claudio Teehankee on 28 January 1988.

[13] cralaw Issued by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. on 15 January 1999.

[14] cralaw Bontuyan v. Judge Villarin, 436 Phil. 560 (2002); Bonilla v. Gustilo, 399 Phil. 16 (2000).

[15] cralaw Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1737, 9 September 2004, 438 SCRA 1; Re: Request of Judge Roberto S. Javellana, RTC-Br. 59, San Carlos City (Negros Occidental) for Extension of Time to Decide Civil Cases Nos. X-98 & RTC 363, 452 Phil. 463 (2003); Sibayan-Joaquin v. Judge Javellana, supra note 7.


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com

ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com