Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1981 > January 1981 Decisions > A.M. No. 1892-CFI January 27, 1981 - EDUARDO ESTILLENA v. OSTERVALDO Z. EMILIA:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. 1892-CFI. January 27, 1981.]

EDUARDO ESTILLENA, Complainant, v. JUDGE OSTERVALDO Z. EMILIA, Respondent.

SYNOPSIS


A complaint against respondent judge, based on the affidavit of the complaint which was originally filed in the Office of the President but was referred to this Court, alleged that a civil case filed by the complainant against the owner of a vehicle figuring in an accident which caused the death of complainant’s daughter, has long been held pending in the Court of First Instance of Himamaylan and everytime a hearing is set, the same is always postponed for a much later date to the detriment of himself and of his family. Copies of the written explanation of the respondent were furnished to the complainant and his lawyer who did not file a reply after a considerable length of time. In view of such silence it was surmised that respondent’s comment met with the complainant’s approval or satisfaction. The Supreme Court nonetheless ruled that too many resetting of cases and too long intervals of calendaring cases, even with the consent of the parties run contrary to the constitutional mandate of speedy dispensation of justice.

Respondent judge admonished.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; DUTIES; DUTY-BOUND TO OBSERVE PROMPTNESS IN DISPOSITION OF ALL MATTERS SUBMITTED TO THEM. — While the records do not show any reply filed by either the complainant or his lawyer to the comment of respondent judge on the administrative complaint filed against him, so that considering the length of time that had elapsed since then and the continued silence of the complainant, it could only be surmised that respondent’s comment met with the complainant’s approval or satisfaction, But is never superflous to remind respondent that judges are duty-bound to observe promptness in disposing of all matters submitted to them, for justice delayed is often justice denied (Cannon 8, Canons of Judicial Ethics). Since delays on the administration of justice is a common cause of complaint among litigants, judges should be able to steer the wheels of justice in a steady onward pace.

2. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; BILL OF RIGHTS; SPEEDY DISPENSATION OF JUSTICE; TOO MANY POSTPONEMENTS AND RESETTING OF CASES RUN CONTRARY THERETO. — Postponements and resettings of cases should be allowed only within reasonable limits. To many resettings and too long intervals of calendaring cases, even with the consent of the parties, run contrary to the constitutional mandate of speedy dispensation of justice, and could work to erode the people’s confidence in the judiciary. Resettings should properly be limited to three consecutive times. The system of calendaring cases should be re-examined and improved so that only those that can possibly be heard in as particular day will be included in the calendar of cases. In so doing, parties-litigants need not wait in vain for the calling of their cases which cannot be tried for lack of material time.

3. JUDICIAL ETHICS; PARTY LITIGANTS; DUTIES; DUE DILIGENCE IN THE DISPATCH OF BUSINESS BEFORE THE COURT. — The parties’ counsel are equally responsible for the smooth flow of the judicial machinery . But judges, without being arbitrary or forcing cases unreasonably or unjustly to trial when counsel is unprepared, to the detriment of the parties, may well endeavor to hold counsel to a proper appreciation of their duties so as to enforce due diligence in the dispatch of business before the court (Canon 18, Canons of Judicial Ethics).


D E C I S I O N


MAKASIAR, J.:


This complaint is based on an affidavit dated April 18, 1978 of Eduardo Estillena which was originally filed with the Office of the President but referred to this Court by Mr. Francisco A. Robles, Senior Executive Assistant II, Office of the President, on April 27, 1978.

The pertinent portion of said affidavit reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That on February 21, 1975, my daughter Marivic, age, one year and seven months met a vehicular accident resulting in her fatal death at Barangay San Jose, Binalbagan, Negros Occidental:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"That as a consequence thereof, we filed a civil case against the owner of the vehicle, one Mr. Gerardo Yusay of Isabela, Negros Occidental for indemnification resulting from the death of our daughter;

"That for sometime, our above-mentioned case was tried at the local court of justice in Binalbagan, after which the same was later transferred to the court of first instance branch at Himamaylan, Negros Occidental;

"That we have been spending quite a lot for our attorney’s and other incidental fees for the last three (3) consecutive years without any apparent evidence that our case may eventually be resolved by our local court of justice in the CFI branch;

"That I personally believe and have faith in the axiom which has grown very common and popular under the New Society era wherein ‘justice is supposed to be for everyone;’

"That I am accordingly executing this affidavit with the end in view that the corresponding supreme authorities of our land may extend this matter their utmost preferential attention as to cause a speedy disposition of our case, which has long been held pending unreasonably by the local CFI branch, the fact that everytime a hearing is set, the same is always postponed for a much later date to the detriment of my family and myself;

"That by these presents I am personally registering my complaint against the erring Judge of the Court of First Instance of Himamaylan, handling our case, the fact that they seem to have an understanding and connivance with the attorneys-at-law handling the case; . . ."cralaw virtua1aw library

x       x       x


By a First Indorsement dated May 2, 1978, respondent Judge was required to comment on the complaint in compliance with which he submitted his comments dated June 6, 1978, which may be summarized as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

The complaint of Eduardo Estillena (Civil Case No. 893) for damages based on quasi-delict for the death of his daughter finally came up for pre-trial on September 1, 1976. There are two sets of defendants, each represented by a different counsel, namely, Atty. Romeo Sabig for Roberto Abailo and Teodorico Abalunan, Jr., and Atty. Lailab Fernandez of Cebu City for Rolando Genal and Gerardo Yusay. On Sept. 1, 1976, the parties agreed to explore the possibility of amicable settlement and to reset the pre-trial to December 8, 1976.

On December 8, 1976, the parties requested for an extension of time to further explore the possibility of amicable settlement, for which reason the pre-trial was reset to February 7, 1977.chanrobles law library : red

On February 7, 1977, the issue came up whether this case could proceed independently of the criminal case. A favorable ruling was issued by the court on March 2, 1977. At the instance of Atty. Infante (presumably counsel for complainant), the pre-trial was reset on June 6, 1977.

On June 6, 1977, the pre-trial was terminated upon agreement of the parties although they were still willing to explore the possibility of amicable settlement. The court required the parties to submit a stipulation of facts and a list of witnesses and exhibits. The trial on the merits was set on August 1, 1977.

On August 1, 1977, Atty. Sabig was given five (5) days to reply to the proposed stipulation of facts filed by Atty. Infante. Upon agreement of the parties, the trial was reset to September 14, 1977.

On September 14, 1977, all parties appeared except Atty. Fernandez and the defendants he represents. Since the records showed that they were not duly notified, the court directed that another notice be sent to said counsel at his known address in Cebu City, while ordering defendant Yusay to contact personally his counsel and in case of the latter’s failure to appear at the next hearing, to engage the services of a new counsel. The trial was reset to February 7, 1978.

On February 7, 1978, the judge had to attend a conference called by then Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro in Cebu City, so the hearing was reset to April 12, 1978.

On April 12, 1978, the judge was busy with urgent cases in the morning so he suggested to hold the hearing in the afternoon. But since Atty. Virgilio Lopez, the new counsel for defendants Yusay and Genal, had to catch the afternoon plane for Cebu City in Bacolod, the hearing was again reset to June 19, 1978.

The respondent judge explained further that the proceedings on the case have been proper and aboveboard, and the settings were upon agreement of the parties consistent with the case load in the daily calendar of the court.

The written explanation of the respondent indicates that the complainant and his lawyer were furnished copies thereof. However, the records do not show any reply filed by either the complainant or his lawyer to said comment. Considering the length of time that has elapsed since then, and the continued silence of the complainant, it could only be surmised that the respondent’s comment met with the complainant’s approval or satisfaction.

But it is never superfluous to remind respondent that judges are duty-bound to observe promptness in disposing of all matters submitted to them, for justice delayed is often justice denied (Canon 8, Canons of Judicial Ethics). Since delay in the administration of justice is a common cause of complaint among litigants, judges should be able to steer the wheels of justice in a steady onward pace.cralawnad

Postponements and resettings of cases should be allowed only within reasonable limits. Too many resettings and too long intervals of calendaring cases, even with the consent of the parties, run contrary to the constitutional mandate of speedy dispensation of justice, and could work to erode the people’s confidence in the judiciary. Resettings should probably be limited to three consecutive times. The system of calendaring cases should be re-examined and improved so that only those that can possibly be heard in a particular day will be included in the calendar of cases. In so doing, parties-litigants need not wait in vain for the calling of their cases which cannot be tried for lack of material time.

Of course the parties’ counsel are equally responsible for the smooth flow of the judicial machinery. But judges, without being arbitrary or forcing cases unreasonably or unjustly to trial when unprepared, to the detriment of the parties, may well endeavor to hold counsel to a proper appreciation of their duties so as to enforce due diligence in the dispatch of business before the court (Canon 18, Canons of Judicial Ethics).

WHEREFORE, the respondent is hereby admonished to discharge his judicial functions more promptly and expeditiously.

Teehankee, (Chairman), Fernandez, Guerrero and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.




Back to Home | Back to Main




















chanrobles.com





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






January-1981 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-53953 January 5, 1981 - SANDE AGUINALDO, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47185 January 15, 1981 - BERNABE BUSCAYNO v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49579 January 15, 1981 - JOSE MA. SISON, ET AL. v. JUAN PONCE ENRILE, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-54577 January 15, 1981 - OTHONIEL V. JIMENEZ v. MILITARY COMMISSION NO. 34, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-49473 January 16, 1981 - JOSE E. LUNETA, ET AL. v. SPECIAL MILITARY COMMISSION NO. I, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-41419 January 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PABLITO GIDA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47400 January 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ENRIQUE S. NOVALES, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-48735 January 19, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO ANDAYA

  • G.R. No. L-21035 January 22, 1981 - IN RE: TAN TEK CHIAN v. REPUBLlC OF THE PHIL.

  • G.R. No. L-27600 January 22, 1981 - FAUSTINO RONCESVALLES v. LUIS PATOLA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38755 January 22, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE PINCALIN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-38936 January 22, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMUALDO BATTUNG, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-51367 January 22, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PHILIP VALDEMORO

  • G.R. No. L-55333 January 22, 1981 - ALICIA V. CABATINGAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • A.M. No. P-208 January 27, 1981 - ISABELO GARCIANO v. WILFREDO OYAO

  • A.M. No. 1892-CFI January 27, 1981 - EDUARDO ESTILLENA v. OSTERVALDO Z. EMILIA

  • G.R. No. L-26193 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODULFO SABIO

  • G.R. Nos. L-26911 & L-26924 January 27, 1981 - ATLAS CONSOLIDATED MINING & DEV. CORP. v. COMMISSIONER OF INTERNAL REVENUE

  • G.R. No. L-32791 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO YUTILA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-34332 January 27, 1981 - WINDOR STEEL MFG. CO., INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-39310 January 27, 1981 - JOHN A. IMUTAN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-40531 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LUISITO ARIAS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-42856 January 27, 1981 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-43649 January 27, 1981 - BERNARDO CAYABA v. WORKMEN’S COMPENSATION COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-44188 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BENIGNO PEREZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45141 January 27, 1981 - PETRONILA T. CABALQUINTO v. REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-45168 January 27, 1981 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-46338 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERBITO LACSON

  • G.R. No. L-48548 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BIENVENIDO C. HINLO

  • G.R. No. L-49778 January 27, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO A. BAUTISTA

  • A.M. No. 1720 January 31, 1981 - DY TEBAN HARDWARE & AUTO SUPPLY CO. v. LAURO L. TAPUCAR

  • A.M. No. 2035-MJ January 31, 1981 - FRANCISCO CARREON v. MANUEL B. ACOSTA

  • A.M. No. L-2395-CFI January 31, 1981 - PHILIPPINE TRIAL LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, INC. v. ENRIQUE A. AGANA SR.

  • G.R. No. L-25168 January 31, 1981 - IN RE: KUMALA SALIM WING v. AHMAD ABUBAKAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. L-25836-37 January 31, 1981 - PHILIPPINE BANK OF COMMERCE v. JOSE M. ARUEGO

  • G.R. No. L-26399 January 31, 1981 - FERNANDO MARTINEZ v. FLORENCIA EVANGELISTA

  • G.R. No. L-30538 January 31, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BONIFACIO TIROL, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos L-41022-23 January 31, 1981 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CECILIO FAMILGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. L-47553 January 31, 1981 - JANE L. GARCIA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.