Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence


Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence > Year 1996 > January 1996 Decisions > Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1064 January 22, 1996 - EMILIA B. HERNANDEZ v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN:




PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

THIRD DIVISION

[Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1064. January 22, 1996.]

EMILIA B. HERNANDEZ, Complainant, v. JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati City, Respondent.


SYLLABUS


1. JUDICIAL ETHICS; JUDGES; SHOULD AVOID DELAY IN HEARING AND DECIDING A CASE. — Respondent Judge . . . should not have allowed frequent postponements to delay the trial of the case. Circular No. 1, dated January 28, 1988, provides that Trial Judges should adopt a strict policy on postponement to avoid unnecessary delays in Court procedure. It likewise mandates faithful adherence to Secs. 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 22 of the Rules of Court. . . the case was deemed submitted for decision on May 28, 1992. Therefore, it should have been decided by August, 1992. . . The Judgment is dated February 23, 1993 but the date of actual promulgation does not appear on record. Reckoned from February 2, 1993, there was already a 6-month delay in the rendition of the judgment.

2. ID.; ID.; SHOULD FOLLOW THE TIME LIMIT SET FOR DECIDING CASES. — Respondent Judge should, at all times, remain in full control of the proceedings in his sala and should adopt firm policy against improvident postponements. More importantly, he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases. He not have delayed the preparation and promulgation of the judgment on the hearsay information — which in itself is flimsy — that complainant allegedly wanted the delay to enable her to present additional witnesses. After all, by convicting the accused, respondent Judge did not really need their testimonies anyway.


D E C I S I O N


PANGANIBAN, J.:


In a letter-complaint dated August 9, 1993, Emilia B. Hernandez charged Judge Salvador P. de Guzman of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 142), Makati City, with bias as follows:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"Pero ang ginawa ng hukom ay lalong pinatagal sa pamamagitan ng re-setting hanggang inabot ng apat na taon at lalong hindi ko malunok sapagkat sa loob ng apat na taon ay P5,000.00 (limang libong piso) lang ang makukuha ko." (Rollo, p. 3)

Hernandez was also the complainant in Criminal Case No. 89-1198 entitled "People v. Yadollah Sichani", for violation of Art. 34 (i) of P.D. 442, as amended (on illegal recruitment). After trial, respondent Judge rendered a judgment of conviction, dated February 23, 1993, the dispositive portion of which reads:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The accused is therefore found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating the provisions of Article 34, paragraph i, PD 442, as amended, and is hereby sentenced, as follows:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary

1. To pay a fine of P5,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of insolvency (sic); and

2. To indemnify Emilia Hernandez in the sum of P5,000.00.

"SO ORDERED."cralaw virtua1aw library

In spite of the foregoing, complainant was not satisfied, claiming that respondent Judge deliberately delayed the trial. She also felt that the P5,000.00 indemnity awarded her was unfair and the result of bias.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

In his Verified Comment filed on November 16, 1993, respondent Judge contended that the "delay in the resolution of the case (which was received at Branch 142 on March 16, 1989) IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO MS. HERNANDEZ HERSELF. . . . After her testimony was given, she was allowed seven (7) dates to have the (NAIA) guards (her witnesses take the stand . . ." After the case was deemed submitted for resolution on May 28, 1992, he immediately prepared the decision. Nevertheless, the promulgation was delayed because the complainant allegedly "used to frequent the court house to assure the (respondent Judge’s) staff members that the guards at the NAIA have agreed to testify if she will only be given an opportunity to reopen the case."cralaw virtua1aw library

As to the award of P5,000.00, respondent Judge alleged that, per testimony of the complainant herself, she suffered only P3,000.00 in damages. In rendering the judgment, respondent relied on the order of the POEA, dated May 29, 1989, in Case No. (L) RRB-88-01-016 (Emilia Hernandez v. Filipinas Arabia Resources, Inc.) finding respondent therein liable to complainant Hernandez for refund of only P3,000.00.

Finally, respondent Judge pointed out that under Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, complaints against judges should be sworn to, "whereas Ms. Hernandez’ complaint is not under oath at all." chanrobles.com : virtual lawlibrary

By resolution dated December 8, 1993, the Court referred this case to the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation, and on November 20, 1995, the First Division transferred it to the Third Division for disposition. After due deliberation and consultation, the Court agreed with the recommendation dated February 28, 1994 of Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad (which was approved by the Court Administrator) and assigned the writing of this Resolution to undersigned ponente. The said recommendation reads in part:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph

"The charge that the trial of the case was unduly delayed is meritorious. Although it appears from the very own admission of respondent Judge that there was delay which is not attributable to him, but to complainant herself, still he should not have allowed such frequent postponements to delay the trial of the case. Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1988 provides that Trial Judges should adopt a strict policy on postponement to avoid unnecessary delays in Court procedure. It likewise mandates faithful adherence to Secs. 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 22 of the Rules of Court. Respondent Judge likewise admitted that the case was deemed submitted for decision on May 28, 1992. Therefore, it should have been decided by August, 1992. The fact that complainant repeatedly assured the Court personnel that the NAIA guards had agreed to testify if the case would be reopened does not justify the delay in the rendition of the Judgment. It appears that the Judgment is dated February 23, 1993 but the date of actual promulgation does not appear on record. Reckoned from February 23, 1993, there was already a 6-month delay in the rendition of the judgment. Logically, it was promulgated at a much later date.

"The matter of the grant of only P5,000.00 as indemnity to the complainant is judicial in nature. Complainant could have resorted to other available legal remedies to question the propriety of the award. An administrative complaint is not the proper forum for questioning the propriety of a decision or Order perceived to be unjust or unreasonable."cralaw virtua1aw library

This Court reminds respondent Judge that he should, at all times, remain in full control of the proceedings in his sala and should adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements. More importantly, he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases. He should not have delayed the preparation and promulgation of the judgment on the hearsay information — which in itself is flimsy — that complainant allegedly wanted the delay to enable her to present additional witnesses. After all, by convicting the accused, respondent Judge did not really need their testimonies anyway.

WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered imposing a FINE of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) on the respondent Judge for the delay in hearing and deciding Criminal Case No. 89-1198, with the stern WARNING that a repetition of the same of similar acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., Melo and Francisco, JJ., concur.chanroblesvirtual|awlibrary

Narvasa, C.J., took no part.




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-1996 Jurisprudence                 

  • Adm. Matter No. P-94-1032 January 18, 1996 - FELICIDAD V. MORALES v. JULIO G. TARONGOY

  • G.R. No. 104528 January 18, 1996 - PHILIPPINE NATIONAL BANK v. OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT

  • G.R. No. 113349 January 18, 1996 - ROBERTO MONDONEDO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116524 January 18, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. LYNDON M. FLORES

  • G.R. No. 116719 January 18, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. PATRICIO AMIGO

  • G.R. No. 118771 January 18, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. MAXIMO T. ABRENICA

  • Adm. Matter No. RTJ-93-1064 January 22, 1996 - EMILIA B. HERNANDEZ v. SALVADOR P. DE GUZMAN

  • G.R. No. 102874 January 22, 1996 - MACARIO R. LOPEZ v. LOURDES C. JAVIER, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 104482 January 22, 1996 - BELINDA TAÑEDO v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 108538 January 22, 1996 - LOURDES A. VALMONTE v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 109404 January 22, 1996 - FLORENCIO EUGENIO v. FRANKLIN Y. DRILON

  • G.R. No. 111212 January 22, 1996 - GEORGE ANDERSON v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117051 January 22, 1996 - FRANCEL REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 110592 January 23, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. YOLANDA VELASCO PAMINTUAN

  • G.R. No. 52267 January 24, 1996 - ENGINEERING & MACHINERY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 87110 January 24, 1996 - GIL RUBIO v. MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES

  • G.R. No. 98197 January 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DANILO MAGSOMBOL

  • G.R. No. 111929 January 24, 1996 - AMERICAN HOME ASSURANCE CO. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 112659 January 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. SUCHINDA LEANGSIRI

  • G.R. No. 114333 January 24, 1996 - PANTRANCO NORTH EXPRESS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 114972 January 24, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. FERNANDO S. CASTANEDA

  • G.R. No. 115849 January 24, 1996 - FIRST PHILIPPINE INTERNATIONAL BANK, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 116588 January 24, 1996 - PRIMO T. TANALA v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117418 January 24, 1996 - STELLAR INDUSTRIAL SERVICES v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 117423 January 24, 1996 - LEGAR MANAGEMENT & REALTY CORPORATION v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 98061 January 25, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. CASIMIRO DE CASTRO

  • G.R. No. 101941 January 25, 1996 - EDMUNDO QUEBRAL v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 105877 January 25, 1996 - VALIANT MACHINERY, ET AL. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 107378 January 25, 1996 - REMEDIOS K. ASIS v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 112337 January 25, 1996 - ANTONIO L. AZORES v. SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 113615 January 25, 1996 - BIENVENIDO VELARMA v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 106440 January 29, 1996 - ALEJANDRO MANOSCA, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 107640 January 29, 1996 - FAUSTINA PUNCIA, ET AL. v. ANTONIO N. GERONA, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 108522 January 29, 1996 - GERARDO A. DEL MUNDO v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 112869 January 29, 1996 - KELLY R. WICKER, ET AL. v. PAUL T. ARCANGEL

  • G.R. No. 114762 January 29, 1996 - REBECCA DESAMITO VDA. DE ALCANTARA v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 114904 January 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. DEMETRIO HUBILLA, JR., ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 114952 January 29, 1996 - MAGNOLIA DAIRY PRODUCTS CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 115920 January 29, 1996 - PCI AUTOMATION CENTER v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 116279 January 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ROGELIO CRISTOBAL

  • G.R. No. 116486 January 29, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RODRIGO R. MALIPUT

  • G.R. No. 117059 January 29, 1996 - PIZZA HUT/PROGRESSIVE DEVELOPMENT CORP. v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 118671 January 29, 1996 - HILARIO M. RUIZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 119583 January 29, 1996 - NESCITO C. HILARIO v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 120040 January 29, 1996 - CAMILO Y. GO, ET AL. v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • A.M. No. MTJ-94-984 January 30, 1996 - GLADY M. GALVEZ v. GEMINIANO A. EDUARDO

  • A.M. No. P-96-1177 January 30, 1996 - SALVADOR D. SILERIO v. IGNACIO B. BALASULLA

  • A.M. No. RTJ-95-1330 January 30, 1996 - AZUCENA CINCO TABAO, ET AL. v. ENRIQUE C. ASIS

  • G.R. No. 112096 January 30, 1996 - MARCELINO B. AGOY v. NATIONAL LABOR RELATIONS COMMISSION

  • G.R. No. 119155 January 30, 1996 - VICTORINA A. CRUZ v. COURT OF APPEALS, ET AL.

  • Adm. Matter No. MTJ-96-1072 January 31, 1996 - DANIEL MAMOLO v. ROGELIO R. NARISMA

  • G.R. Nos. 107382 & 107612 January 31, 1996 - ASSOCIATED BANK v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 108251 January 31, 1996 - CEFERINO S. PAREDES v. SANDIGANBAYAN, ET AL.

  • G.R. No. 111876 January 31, 1996 - JOHANNA SOMBONG v. COURT OF APPEALS

  • G.R. No. 112034 January 31, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. RIZALDY C. CONDE

  • G.R. No. 117415 January 31, 1996 - PEOPLE OF THE PHIL. v. ELISA D. MIRANDA

  • G.R. No. 118303 January 31, 1996 - HEHERSON T. ALVAREZ v. TEOFISTO T. GUINGONA

  • G.R. No. 118491 January 31, 1996 - ALFONSO BALAIS, ET AL. v. TIRSO D.C. VELASCO, ET AL.