ChanRobles Virtual law Library

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

cralaw_scresolutions_separator.NHAD

[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1588February 26, 2001]

GANO et al. vs. JUDGE ANGHAD RTC OF BANAUE IFUGAO

SECOND DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated FEB 26 2001.

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1588(Alberto Gano, et al. vs. Judge Anastacio D. Anghad, Regional Trial Court of Banaue, lfugao, Branch 34.)

Complainants Alberto Gano, Rogelio Gumuwang, Guinaya Dimalia and Maureen Gumuwang filed a letter-complaint charging respondent Judge Anastacio Anghad of the RTC of Banaue, lfugao, Branch 34 with undue delay in the resolution of Civil Case No. 35.

It appears that Dionisio Immatong filed a Complaint for declaration of nullity of a contract of sale against herein complainants Alberto Gano, Rogelio Gumuwang, Guinaya Dimalia, and Maureen Gumuwang before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court - Banaue-Hungduan-Mayoyao, of Banaue, lfugao Province. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 284. On October 27, 1998, the court a quo rendered judgment which in effect dismissed the complaint filed by Dionisio Immatong against the complainants. Dissatisfied with the decision, Dionisio Immatong perfected an appeal, docketed as Civil Case No. 35. It was raffled to Branch 34, of the Regional Trial Court of Banaue, lfugao, presided by respondent Judge Anastacio D. Anghad. Complainants claimed that respondent judge failed to seasonably decide the appealed case considering that the notice of appeal was filed on May 17, 1999.

On June 19, 2000, the OCA required respondent judge to comment on the letter-complaint. In his Comment dated July 27,2000, respondent judge admitted that he failed to resolve the case but reasoned out that aside from his regular sala he was also designated as acting presiding judge of Branch 14, RTC-Lagawe, lfugao and that Judge Catral had left several undecided cases which demanded much of his attention. Although he promised to dispose of the case within two (2) weeks from July 27, 2000, the Court did not receive any decision nor did the record show that the case was resolved within said period.

In the Memorandum dated August 10, 2000, DCA Ponferrada of the OCA recommended the imposition of fine in the amount of P1,000.00 against respondent judge for his failure to file an extension and to resolve the appealed case within the prescribed period.

We adopt the recommendation of the OCA.

Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the period fixed by law, that is, in three (3) months from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum. Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standard and brings it into disrepute (Abarquez v. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109). This Court has consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. Non-observance of said rule is a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge (Atty. Nescito Hilaria v. Judge Crisanto Concepcion, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1554, March 2, 2000).

Respondent judge admitted, in his comment, that he failed to resolve Civil Case No. 35. However, we are not impressed by respondent judges proferred explanation that the magnitude of his workload as Presiding Judge of two (2) branches of the Ifugao RTC prevented him from timely deciding the case. This excuse, albeit lamentable, serves only to mitigate the penalty but not to absolve him from liability. He could have explained to the Court his predicament and sought for an extension of time to resolve the cases assigned to him. Although there was no mention when the case was submitted for decision. we could only surmise that the period to decide it had already lapsed.

Hence, the imposition of a fine of P1,000.00, by the OCA, is commensurate to his failure to seasonably decide Civil Case No. 35.

ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge ANASTACIO D. ANGHAD of RTC, Banaue, lfugao, Branch 34, is found guilty of gross inefficiency and is hereby ordered to pay a fine of P1,000.00 within fifteen (15) days from receipt hereof, with stern warning that a repetition of the same or any similar act will be dealt with more severely.

Respondent judge is ordered to submit to this Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, a copy of his decision in Civil Case No. 35 immediately upon rendition thereof as proof of compliance with his undertaking to decide the case.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)TOMASITA M. DRIS
Clerk of Court


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