Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1994 > June 1994 Decisions > A.M. No. RTJ-93-999 June 15, 1994 - MOISES S. BENTULAN v. MANUEL P. DUMATOL:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-93-999. June 15, 1994.]

MOISES S. BENTULAN, Complainant, v. JUDGE MANUEL P. DUMATOL, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. LEGAL AND JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; DISCIPLINE OF JUDGES; GROSS INEFFICIENCY AND NEGLECT OF DUTY; FAILURE TO DECIDE A CASE LONG OVERDUE FOR DECISIONS; A CASE OF. — The respondent has not denied the allegations of the complainant that the latter made oral requests and filed written motions for the early decision of the case. Since there is no showing that the respondent had acted on the written motions, it is safe to assume that he simply disregarded them. Be that as it may, his attention was, nevertheless, drawn to the fact that the decision was long overdue and that his period to decide the case under the solemn mandate of Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution had long expired. That he had other "priorities" to attend to does not mitigate his liability because, firstly, such a claim finds, no factual support and, secondly, if the claim were true, then he should have written this Court and asked for extension of time to decide Civil Case No. 9441-P and other cases. Obviously, he forgot that the public-trust character of his office imposes upon him the highest degree of responsibility and efficiency.

2. ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; ID.; PENALTY THEREFOR IN CASE AT BAR. — The Court finds respondent JUDGE MANUEL P. DUMATOL guilty of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty and he is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), with a warning that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.


D E C I S I O N


DAVIDE, JR., J.:


Respondent, the incumbent Presiding Judge of Branch 112 of the Regional Trial Court, of Pasay City, was charged with inefficiency and incompetence in the perfomance of official duties in a verified letter-complaint, dated 28 April 1993, addressed to the Honorable Chief Justice through the Court Administrator. Complainant, who is the defendant in Civil Case No. 9441-P, alleges in the letter-complaint that the said case was instituted on 6 February 1984 and was submitted for decision as early as 29 September 1989. Yet, despite several oral and written requests and motions for its early decision made by the complainant, the respondent failed to decide the case. More specifically, he alleges that since eight months after the case was submitted for decision, he had been going to the sala of the respondent to inquire about the status of the case. On each occasion, a certain Vida Garcia always informed him that the respondent was either busy or not yet in. He also filed with the respondent’s court an Ex-parte Motion to Render Decision on 5 May 1990, an Ex-parte Motion to Resolve Motion to Render Decision on 14 September 1990, and another Motion to Resolve Motion to Render Decision on 21 December 1990. Then on several occasions during the succeeding years he followed-up his request.

On 1 August 1991, Atty. Cynthia Madamba, Clerk of Court of the respondent’s court, informed the complainant that he had already finished writing the decision but that it was with the respondent for approval and signing.

Complainant further avers that in August 1991, he again inquired about the decision and the respondent personally informed him that he would resolve the case the following month since he would have to give priority first to cases involving prisoners. On account of the actuations of the respondent, the complainant sought assistance from the Office of the Court Administrator. On 28 October 1991, Atty. Andrew Inocencio of the said Office told the complainant that the respondent would inform the Office about the case on the last day of October. But since by November the said Office had not received any call from the respondent, the complainant went to the sala of the respondent on 25 November 1991. He was assured by Atty. Madamba that the decision would be released on 15 December 1991. On 16 December 1991, the respondent again assured the complainant that the decision would be released before the end of the year. The respondent explained that since he heard only the last part of the case, he still needed time to study the case records. On 27 December 1991, the respondent again assured him that the decision would be released after New Year.chanrobles law library : red

In his Comment submitted on 16 November 1993 in compliance with the Resolution of 16 June 1993, the respondent explains that the case was filed before he became a Judge, that the pre-trial thereon and the reception of the evidence for the plaintiffs were conducted by Judge Nicanor Silvano, and that the evidence for the defendant was received by Judge (now CA Justice) Fermin, Martin, Jr. and by Judge Sergio Amonoy. When the latter was designated by this Court to try exclusively criminal cases, Civil Case No. 9441-P was re-raffled to him (respondent). Since the plaintiffs therein waived the presentation of rebuttal evidence, he required the parties to submit their respective memoranda, which they did. Considering that not all of the stenographic notes have been transcribed, the testimony on cross-examination of plaintiff Aurelia Mercado was retaken on 10 April 1989 upon motion of the plaintiffs. The parties then submitted their supplemental memoranda. Plaintiffs submitted a reply memoranda on 15 September 1989. He further claims that a draft of the decision "has already been preapared sometime in November 1991 but due to conflicting priorities including preparing decisions in cases involving detention prisoners, appealed ejectment cases tried under the rules on summary procedure in the inferior courts and other cases personally heard by him, the decision in [the] case was not promptly finalized and released" ; and that the "records of this cases, as well as, the evidences [sic] submitted by the parties and the transcript of stenographic notes were all burned in the fire which gutted the premises of [the] Court in January 1992." He admits that "he has failed to promptly render a decision in [the] case after the parties have submitted their respective memoranda, and is willing to receive whatever penalty this Court may, considering the circumstances of the case, deem fit and proper," but appeals for leniency because his "failure to decide [the] case without delay is due, principally to the fact that it was not he who actually heard the evidence for the parties, coupled with the fact that the docket of [the] Court, since [he] was appointed . . . in November 4, 1986, has been clogged with cases with unresolved motions and undecided cases, so much so that the [J]PDIO had to retrieve some of the ‘inherited cases’ which the staff of judges of said office had to decide."cralaw virtua1aw library

Complainant filed a Reply to the Comment.

In the Resolution of 8 December 1993, we required the parties to inform the Court if they were willing to submit this case for decision on the basis of the pleading already filed. In separate manifestations, the parties agreed to submit this cases on the basis of such pleadings.chanrobles law library : red

We referred this case to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. In its Memorandum of 25 April 1994, the said Office, after narrating the foregoing allegations in the complaint and comment, makes the following observations and evaluation:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"After a careful perusal of the records of the case, we find Judge Manuel P. Dumatol to be liable of the offense charged.

No less than the Philippine Constitution guarantees that ‘all persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies’ (Sec. 16 Art. III, Phil. Constitution).

The Philippine Constitution goes on to say in Art. VIII, Sec. 15 that ‘all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved . . . within three months for all other lower courts.’

The Code of Judicial Conduct dictates that ‘he should be prompt in disposing all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied.’

The same Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that ‘a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.’

Several laws and circulars of this Honorable Court have been enacted and issued to counter the alarming problem of delay in the administration of justice. Hence, it is imperative upon the respondent Judge to support and implement these laws and circulars by resolving the cases submitted before him for decision without delay and within the soonest time possible.

From the history of the case culled from the rollo, this is not an inherited case because it was submitted for decision to respondent Judge. Hence, he should have exhibited more than casual industry and promptness in disposing this case submitted to him a long time ago especially when a party was following it up time and again demonstrating his interest in the early termination of the same.chanrobles law library : red

In the present case, respondent Judge simply lacks the eagerness and zeal to decide the subject case. The case was submitted for decision on September 1989 and the draft of the decision was prepared only in November 1991. Worst, the draft was among those gutted by the fire which occurred in January 1992.

Had the respondent Judge been more dedicated in his work, the case would have been resolved way before the fire. There would have been no need for reconstitution. Had the respondent Judge been more mindful that ‘justice delayed is justice denied,’ the case would not have dragged up to this date."cralaw virtua1aw library

and recommends as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully submitted for the consideration of this Honorable Court with the recommendation that Judge Manuel P. Dumatol, RTC, Branch 112, Pasay City be meted a penalty of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) FINE with a stern warning that a repetition of the same and similar acts or offenses in the future will be dealt with severely."cralaw virtua1aw library

We find the evaluation and recommendation to be well-taken and hereby adopt it.chanrobles.com : virtual law library

We wish to add that the respondent has not denied the allegations of the complainant that the latter made oral requests and filed written motions for the early decision of the case. Since there is no showing that the respondent had acted on the written motions, it is safe to assume that he simply disregarded them. Be that as it may, his attention was, nevertheless, drawn to the fact that the decision was long overdue and that his period to decide the case under the solemn mandate of Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution had long expired. That he had other "priorities" to attend to does not mitigate his liability because, firstly, such a claim finds, no factual support and, secondly, if the claim were true, then he should have written this Court and asked for extension of time to decide Civil Case No. 9441-P and other cases. Obviously, he forgot that the public-trust character of his office imposes upon him the highest degree of responsibility and efficiency.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent JUDGE MANUEL P. DUMATOL guilty of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty and he is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), with a warning that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely. Respondent Judge is further directed to decide Civil Case No. 9441-P if he still has not done so, with utmost dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, Bellosillo, Quiason and Kapunan, 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






June-1994 Jurisprudence                 

  • G.R. No. L-49065 June 1, 1994 - EVELIO B. JAVIER, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 104872-73 June 1, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELBERT S. AMAR

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-92-881 June 2, 1994 - ANTONIO A. GALLARDO, ET AL. v. SINFOROSO V. TABAMO, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-93-811 June 2, 1994 - BIYAHEROS MART LIVELIHOOD ASSOCIATION, INC. v. BENJAMIN L. CABUSAO, JR.

  • G.R. No. 45158 June 2, 1994 - ZENAIDA M. PALMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 76714 June 2, 1994 - SALUD TEODORO VDA. DE PEREZ v. ZOTICO A. TOLETE

  • G.R. No. 85455 June 2, 1994 - EDITH JUINIO ATIENZA v. CA

  • G.R. No. 86639 June 2, 1994 - MA. THERESA R. ALBERTO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105436 June 2, 1994 - EUGENIO JURILLA, ET AL. v. COMMISSION ON ELECTIONS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106107 June 2, 1994 - AGUSTIN CHU v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107057 June 2, 1994 - TEODORO ARAOS, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107847 June 2, 1994 - IRMA C. ALFONSO v. COMELEC, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104654 June 6, 1994 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. ROSALIO G. DE LA ROSA, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 106644-45 June 7, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUDY C. IGNACIO

  • G.R. No. 94147 June 8, 1994 - REPUBLIC OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO TOLEDANO

  • G.R. No. 101631 June 8, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO M. IBAY

  • G.R. No. 102056-57 June 8, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DOMINADOR SARELLANA

  • G.R. No. 75508 June 10, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FELIX PADILLA

  • G.R. No. 93730-31 June 10, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. BERNARDO OMPAD, JR.

  • A.M. No. P-93-930 June 13, 1994 - ANDRES MEDILO, ET AL. v. MANUEL A. ASODISEN

  • G.R. No. 96951 June 13, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROMEO A. GABAS

  • G.R. No. 100424 June 13, 1994 - UNIVERSITY PHYSICIANS SERVICES, INC., ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106136 June 13, 1994 - ROSARIO G. JIMENEZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106429 June 13, 1994 - JOSELITA SALITA v. DELILAH MAGTOLIS

  • G.R. No. 106897 June 13, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CHRISTIAN SANDAGON

  • G.R. No. 104284 June 14, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RHODORA M. SULIT

  • G.R. No. 107432 June 14, 1994 - ERLINDA B. CAUSAPIN, ET AL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107918 June 14, 1994 - ASSOCIATED BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108854 June 14, 1994 - MA. PAZ FERNANDEZ KROHN v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 109454 June 14, 1994 - JOSE C. SERMONIA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112386 June 14, 1994 - MARCELINO C. LIBANAN v. SANDIGANBAYAN

  • A.M. No. RTJ-93-999 June 15, 1994 - MOISES S. BENTULAN v. MANUEL P. DUMATOL

  • G.R. No. 82729-32 June 15, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROLANDO VERCHEZ

  • G.R. No. 101117 June 15, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MARCELINO CEDON

  • G.R. No. 103275 June 15, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODOLFO M. BELLAFLOR, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106640-42 June 15, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EUGENIO RESUMA

  • G.R. No. 112050 June 15, 1994 - QUINTIN F. FELIZARDO v. CA

  • G.R. No. 94308 June 16, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RUBEN E. ILAOA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 96644 June 17, 1994 - HEIRS OF JUAN OCLARIT, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. Nos. 100376-77 June 17, 1994 - DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE PHIL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102406 June 17, 1994 - SAMPAGUITA GARMENTS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107940 June 17, 1994 - GAUDENCIO MAPALO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107950 June 17, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. JOSE S. ANTONIO

  • G.R. No. 108738 June 17, 1994 - ROBERTO CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111304 June 17, 1994 - NEMESIO ARTURO S. YABUT, ET AL. v. OFFICE OF THE OMBUDSMAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108771 June 21, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDUARDO V. BENITEZ

  • G.R. No. 109161 June 21, 1994 - SPS. VICTOR DE LA SERNA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-93-1089 June 27, 1994 - VIRGILIO CHAN v. JUDGE AGCAOILI

  • G.R. No. 51457 June 27, 1994 - LUCIA EMBRADO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 72078 June 27, 1994 - EUTIQUIO MARQUINO, ET AL. v. INTERMEDIATE APPELLATE COURT, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93485 June 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PEDRO R. CEDENIO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93807 June 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. INOCENTES DAGUINUTAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93980 June 27, 1994 - CLEMENTE CALDE v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 100156 June 27, 1994 - ISIDORA SALUD v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 101576 June 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RESTITUTO C. PERCIANO, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 102567-68 June 27, 1994 - VICTORIAS MILLING CO INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105378 June 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. EDGAR SADANG, ET AL.

  • .G.R. No. 107837 June 27, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. REYNALDO V. IBARRA

  • G.R. No. 110436 June 27, 1994 - ROMAN A. CRUZ, JR. v. PEOPLE OF THE PHIL., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112066 June 27, 1994 - SOUTHERN NEGROS DEVELOPMENT BANK, INC. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112795 June 27, 1994 - AUGUSTO CAPUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113087 June 27, 1994 - REBECCO PANLILIO, ET AL. v. JOSEFINA G. SALONGA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 105909 June 28, 1994 - MUNICIPALITY OF PILILLA, RIZAL v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107804 June 28, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PRIMITIVO PAGLINAWAN

  • G.R. No. 109770 June 28, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ANDION YANGAN, ET AL.

  • A.M. No. RTJ-91-660 June 30, 1994 - NAPOLEON ABIERA v. BONIFACIO SANZ MACEDA

  • G.R. No. 78109 June 30, 1994 - SOLOMON ROLLOQUE, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 93846 June 30, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISEO CALEGAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 97442 June 30, 1994 - PILAR T. OCAMPO v. CA

  • G.R. No. 102350 June 30, 1994 - TUPAS-WFTU v. BIENVENIDO E. LAGUESMA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104947 June 30, 1994 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. GILBERT P. DELA PEÑA

  • G.R. No. 107951 June 30, 1994 - EPIFANIO FIGE v. CA

  • G.R. No. 111870 June 30, 1994 - AIR MATERIAL WING SAVINGS AND LOAN ASSO., INC. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSIONS

  • G.R. No. 111985 June 30, 1994 - INDUSTRIAL TIMBER CORP., ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.