Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1991 > April 1991 Decisions > A.M. No. RTJ-90-570 April 19, 1991 - ANTONIO SOYANGCO v. ROMEO G. MAGLALANG:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

EN BANC

[A.M. No. RTJ-90-570. April 19, 1991.]

ANTONIO SOYANGCO, Complainant, v. JUDGE ROMEO G. MAGLALANG, Regional Trial Court, Third Judicial Region, Branch 2, Balanga, Bataan, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; RESPONDENT GUILTY OF DERELICTION OF HIS DUTIES AS JUDGE. — It is clear from the answer/comment filed by respondent that the allegations in the complaint are true, that indeed, respondent left unattended for more than five years the case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. In fact, respondent makes no attempt at a denial. He is, therefore, already guilty of dereliction of his duties as judge.

2. ID.; ID.; FAILURE TO DECIDE A SIMPLE CASE FOR OVER FIVE YEARS, AN INORDINATE AMOUNT OF PROCASTINATION TANTAMOUNT TO GROSS NEGLIGENCE. — We find that failure to decide a case, particularly one involving a simple violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, for over five years is an inordinate amount of procrastination tantamount to gross negligence. It is not enough for judges to pen their decisions; it is also important to promulgate and make them known to all concerned at the earliest possible time and within the mandated period.

3. ID.; ID.; COMPLAINANT’S VOLUNTARY DESISTANCE DOES NOT STRIP COURT OF ITS JURISDICTION OVER RESPONDENT JUDGE; REASONS. — Complainant’s voluntary desistance from pursuing the case any further is of no moment and the Court is not thereby stripped of its jurisdiction over Respondent. This is so not only because respondent does not contest the omission imputed against him, which anyway is also supported by the public records. More importantly, this rests on constitutional grounds and sound public policy. The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof (Section 6, Article VIII, Constitution) and sitting en banc has the power to discipline judges of lower courts (Section 11, Article VIII, Constitution). To condition the pursuance of administrative actions upon the will of every complainant who may, for ore reason or another, condone a detestable act is to strip the Court of the is supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary, whose anomalous actuations as administrators of justice affect public interest.


R E S O L U T I O N


PER CURIAM:


This case stems from a complaint against respondent judge for "gross negligence of duties and misconduct and clear violation of the provisions of the Judiciary Act" due to his failure to timely decide Criminal Case No. 3254 entitled People of the Philippines v. Lolita P. Luna filed by complainant Antonio Soyangco for violation of the Bouncing Checks Law (B.P. Blg. 22). Apparently, said case was submitted for decision as early as October, 1984 and as of the filing of the administrative complaint against respondent on 31 August 1990, or for more than five years, the decision in that case had not yet been rendered (Rollo, p. 1).

Pursuant to the resolution of the Court dated 27 September 1990 (Rollo, p. 6), respondent submitted his comment, denominated as answer, to the complaint, alleging inter alia that the decision in the criminal case had been finished and ready for promulgation even before he received his copy of the complaint; that he gave priority to the trial and disposition of cases for subversion and rebellion and other criminal cases where the accused were all detained, including for violations of Republic Act No. 6425, as amended, also known as the Dangerous Drugs Act of 1972, which are entitled to be given preference under said law; that in the course of disposing of these cases, trials, which were held from Monday to Friday every morning and sometimes even in the afternoons, occupied most of his working hours; that aside from handling cases in his own sala, he was designated by the Court to also take cognizance of all cases in Branch 1 for 16 months; that he was appointed by the Court as Executive Judge, which position entails a number of demanding administrative duties; that it was only in 1988, since his appointment in 1983, that he was able to hire a legal researcher, owing to the strict professional requirements originally imposed for said position; and, that there is a dearth of research materials in his court, the only reference being eighty volumes of the Supreme Court Reports Annotated, so that he had to conduct outside legal research that took precious time off decision-making (Rollo, pp. 7-9).

On 6 December 1990, the Court referred this case to Associate Justice Nathanael P. de Pano, Jr. of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation (Rollo, p. 10). In compliance therewith, said investigating Justice submitted on 13 February 1991 a report on what transpired during the hearing, as follows:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library

First, the case of "People of the Philippines v. Lolita P. Luna," complained of by the complainant as not yet decided, has already been decided, the accused therein having been sentenced to pay a fine of more than P60,000.00. Section 1 of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 grants discretion to trial judge (sic) to impose imprisonment, or fine, or both fine and imprisonment in cases involving violation of the "Bouncing Checks" law. The complainant expressly acknowledged that the case had been so decided.chanrobles law library : red

Second, the complainant, after understanding the respondent’s situation as a presiding judge, then expressed his desire to desist from pursuing his complaint. He had thought that he was entitled to personal indemnity in the case that he had initiated against the accused, Lolita P. Luna. The undersigned (investigating Justice) gave the complainant some time to reflect on his decision to desist from pursuing his complaint. After conferring with a companion, a certain Mr. Pizaro, complainant’s brother-in-law, who appeared to be a well-informed person, the complainant affirmed his decision to desist from pursuing his complaint.

Third, the respondent Judge had, on his own, explained that he had not deliberately sat on the above case, the parties involved not being known to him in any manner. And considering the contents of his verified answer, the undersigned has no reason to doubt that this was true. It does appear that the respondent Judge was overburdened, had handled two salas for more than one year (from April, 1987 to August, 1988) and was Executive Judge of Branches 1, 2 and 3 of the Regional Trial Courts (sic) stationed in Bataan from March, 1987 to August, 1988. (pp. 7-8, Report.)

Justice de Pano recommended that respondent be exonerated from the charges leveled against him in view of the desistance made by the complainant such that there is nothing more to support the accusations made in this case.

The Court disagrees.

It is clear from the answer/comment filed by respondent that the allegations in the complaint are true, that indeed, respondent left unattended for more than five years the case for violation of B.P. Blg. 22. In fact, respondent makes no attempt at a denial. He is, therefore, already guilty of dereliction of his duties as judge.

Respondent seeks, however, to justify this neglect by his above-enumerated recital of circumstances which were beyond his control. While the same appear to be valid grounds for a little delay, they can only serve to mitigate but not to erase his administrative liability. We find that failure to decide a case, particularly one involving a simple violation of the Bouncing Checks Law, for over five years is an inordinate amount of procrastination tantamount to gross negligence. It is not enough for judges to pen their decisions; it is also important to promulgate and make them known to all concerned at the earliest possible time and within the mandated period (Nidua v. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581; see also Mangulabnan v. Judge Tecson, 101 SCRA 810).chanrobles.com : virtual law library

Complainant’s voluntary desistance from pursuing the case any further is of no moment and the Court is not thereby stripped of its jurisdiction over Respondent. This is so not only because respondent does not contest the omission imputed against him, which anyway is also supported by the public records. More importantly, this rests on constitutional grounds and sound public policy. The Supreme Court has administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof (Section 6, Article VIII, Constitution) and sitting en banc has the power to discipline judges of lower courts (Section 11, Article VIII, Constitution). To condition the pursuance of administrative actions upon the will of every complainant who may, for ore reason or another, condone a detestable act is to strip the Court of the is supervisory power to discipline erring members of the judiciary, whose anomalous actuations as administrators of justice affect public interest (Anguluan v. Taguba, 93 SCRA 179, citing Vasquez v. Malvar, 85 SCRA 10).

WHEREFORE, the respondent judge, Romeo G. Maglalang, is hereby penalized with a FINE in the amount of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00) and with the WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to respondent’s record.

SO ORDERED.

Fernan, C.J., Narvasa, Melencio-Herrera, Gutierrez, Jr., Cruz, Paras, Feliciano, Gancayco, Padilla, Bidin, Sarmiento, Griño-Aquino, Medialdea, Regalado and Davide, Jr., 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






April-1991 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. 74854 April 2, 1991 - JESUS DACOYCOY v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 75504 April 2, 1991 - VICENTE CU v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 79981 April 2, 1991 - ENGRACIA BACATE AMBERTI v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. P-88-238 April 8, 1991 - GENEROSO V. MIRASOL v. JOSE O. DE LA TORRE, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-89-348 April 8, 1991 - ESTELITA PADRONES v. MELCHOR DIVINAGRACIA

  • G.R. No. 49470 April 8, 1991 - DARIO N. LOZANO v. IGNACIO BALLESTEROS

  • G.R. No. 52179 April 8, 1991 - MUN. OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION v. ROMEO N. FIRME

  • G.R. No. 55109 April 8, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO M. AUSTRIA

  • G.R. No. 73647 April 8, 1991 - JOSE G. BUSMENTE, JR. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 83959 April 8, 1991 - RUPERTO DE GUZMAN v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 87416 April 8, 1991 - CECILIO S. DE VILLA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 89745 April 8, 1991 - RUFINO O. ESLAO v. COMMISSION ON AUDIT

  • G.R. No. 90580 April 8, 1991 - RUBEN SAW v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90596 April 8, 1991 - SOLID MANILA CORPORATION v. BIO HONG TRADING CO., INC.

  • G.R. No. 94284 April 8, 1991 - RICARDO C. SILVERIO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. 90-11-2709-RTC April 16, 1991 - MERIT SYSTEMS PROTECTION BOARD v. RODOLFO P. TORRELLA

  • G.R. No. 85718 April 16, 1991 - FEDERICO CARANDANG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 87119 April 16, 1991 - GEMILIANO C. LOPEZ, JR. v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 88589 April 16, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CARLITO D. LINSANGAN

  • G.R. No. 91259 April 16, 1991 - PHILIPPINE PORTS AUTHORITY v. RENATO A. FUENTES

  • G.R. No. 91925 April 16, 1991 - EDUARDO M. COJUANGCO, JR. v. ANTONIO J. ROXAS

  • A.M. No. P-89-327 April 19, 1991 - THELMA GARCIA v. ROMEO EULLARAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-570 April 19, 1991 - ANTONIO SOYANGCO v. ROMEO G. MAGLALANG

  • A.C. No. 2152 April 19, 1991 - TEODORO I. CHAVEZ v. ESCOLASTICO R. VIOLA

  • A.C. No. 2697 April 19, 1991 - JOSE S. SANTOS v. CIPRIANO A. TAN

  • A.C. No. 2731 April 19, 1991 - GLORIA DELA ROSA OBIA v. BASILIO M. CATIMBANG

  • G.R. No. 73610 April 19, 1991 - PHILIPPINE COMMERCIAL INTERNATIONAL BANK v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. No. 78162 April 19, 1991 - J. ANTONIO M. CARPIO v. ROMEO G. MAGLALANG

  • G.R. Nos. 85939 & 86968 April 19, 1991 - NEW PANGASINAN REVIEW, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92299 April 19, 1991 - REYNALDO R. SAN JUAN v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95861 April 19, 1991 - FRANCISCO L. ABALOS v. CIVIL SERVICE COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 96080 April 19, 1991 - MIGUEL P. PADERANGA v. FRANKLIN M. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 31408 April 22, 1991 - DIRECTOR OF LANDS v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 42725 April 22, 1991 - REPUBLIC BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 45125 April 22, 1991 - LORETA SERRANO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 50501 April 22, 1991 - RODOLFO GUIANG v. RICARDO C. SAMANO

  • G.R. No. 74783 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO B. SORIANO

  • G.R. No. 75389 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. HERNANDO B. MANANTAN

  • G.R. No. 75894 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SANTIAGO TUGBO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 76562 April 22, 1991 - ROGER B. PATRICIO v. ENRIQUE P. SUPLICO

  • G.R. No. 76953 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PONCIANO MANDAPAT

  • G.R. No. 77315 April 22, 1991 - CIRCLE FINANCIAL CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 80767 April 22, 1991 - BOY SCOUTS OF THE PHILIPPINES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 82985 April 22, 1991 - MERVILLE PARK HOMEOWNERS ASSOCIATION v. FRANCISCO X. VELEZ

  • G.R. No. 85647 April 22, 1991 - MERCANTILE INSURANCE CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92570 April 22, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EVANGELINE NUNAG, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93666 April 22, 1991 - GENERAL MILLING CORPORATION v. RUBEN D. TORRES

  • G.R. No. 94571 April 22, 1991 - TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA, JR. v. GUILLERMO CARAGUE

  • G.R. No. 94925 April 22, 1991 - BPI-FAMILY SAVINGS BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94951 April 22, 1991 - APEX MINING COMPANY, INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 95011 April 22, 1991 - MY SAN BISCUITS INC. v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA

  • G.R. No. 78254 April 25, 1991 - JOINT MOH-MOLE ACCREDITATION COMMITTEE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 78556 April 25, 1991 - ALFARO FORTUNADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 83354 April 25, 1991 - LEON MATEO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 90296 April 25, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES M. INDAYA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-90-466 April 26, 1991 - DOMINGA AZOR v. SOFRONIO G. SAYO

  • A.C. No. 1302,1391 and 1543 April 26, 1991 - PAULINO VALENCIA v. ARSENIO FER. CABANTING

  • G.R. No. 45142 April 26, 1991 - SIMPROSA VDA. DE ESPINA, ET AL. v. OTILIO ABAYA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 49839-46 April 26, 1991 - JOSE B.L. REYES v. PEDRO ALMANZOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 51461 April 26, 1991 - CRISPIN DASALLA, SR. v. COURT OF FIRST INSTANCE OF NUEVA ECIJA

  • G.R. No. 69344 April 26, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76212 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROBERTO TUGBANG

  • G.R. No. 83957 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO CABANBAN

  • G.R. No. 84728 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CESAR ATENTO

  • G.R. No. 86641 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ERIC C. ANSING

  • G.R. No. 88838 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MOISES MOKA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92586 April 26, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGARDO L. PUEDAN

  • G.R. No. 93559 April 26, 1991 - ROMEO G. ELEPANTE v. JOB B. MADAYAG

  • G.R. No. 50098 April 30, 1991 - ASSOCIATED CITIZENS BANK v. RAMON V. JAPSON

  • G.R. No. 69999 April 30, 1991 - LUZVIMINDA VISAYAN, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 71835 April 30, 1991 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT

  • G.R. Nos. 74670-74 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHARLY S. GANOHON

  • G.R. No. 76211 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJO M. CUYO

  • G.R. No. 76585 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO BAGUIO

  • G.R. No. 81374 April 30, 1991 - JOSE R. BAUTISTA v. SEC. OF LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT

  • G.R. No. 85322 April 30, 1991 - ALFREDO M. ALMEDA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86042 April 30, 1991 - FEAGLE CONSTRUCTION CORPORATION v. MAURO DORADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86517 April 30, 1991 - ANDRES MAMA, JR., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 86760 April 30, 1991 - CITY OF ZAMBOANGA, ET AL. v. PELAGIO S. MANDI

  • G.R. No. 87215 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ORLANDO I. DE LAS MARINAS

  • G.R. No. 87928 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MATIAS F. GRAZA

  • G.R. No. 88631 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO COLLADO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 88880 April 30, 1991 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 92505 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ALEJANDRO MOTAR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92591 April 30, 1991 - CITYTRUST BANKING CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 92658 April 30, 1991 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ARMANDO P. VASQUEZ, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94151 April 30, 1991 - EASTERN SHIPPING LINES, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 94209 April 30, 1991 - FEATI BANK & TRUST CO. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 94436 April 30, 1991 - LAGRIMAS V. ABALOS v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.