ChanRobles Virtual law Library
<[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1956-RTJ.
SECOND DIVISION
Gentlemen:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated APR 26 2004.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1956-RTJ (Dra. Avelina T. Poblete and Mrs. Basilisa O. Tan vs. Judge Ruth C. Santos, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo City.)
RESOLUTION
Considering the Report dated
... In their separate unverified letters dated
The separate complaints contained practically the same allegations.
Complainants aver that Judge Santos was not prepared to render her decision at
the scheduled date of promulgation. The promulgation of the decisions in the
subject cases were allegedly scheduled initially on
They alleged that on
They stated that they were the last in the list of cases to be
heard on that day. Thirty-nine (39) cases were scheduled for that day. At
around
Complainants also alleged that Judge Santos was biased against them and partial to their sister, Juanita O. Javier, the complainant in the subject criminal cases. Respondent judge allegedly gave more weight to the testimony given by the private criminologist over the examination report submitted by the National Bureau of Investigation (NBI).
Complainants surmised that this partiality of respondent judge is a result of their refusal to enter into an amicable settlement with their sister. They alleged that Judge Santos insisted that the properties left by their deceased sister, Dra. Brigida Omana, be divided equally amongst them. Judge Santos allegedly stated that "walang mananalo at matatalo sa kasong ito, at Hindi ninyo madadala sa langit ang mga property na iyan." Complainants alleged that they refused to settle with their sister because of the humiliation caused on them and their families by these cases.
Mrs. Basilisa O. Tan also complained that on 23 September 2003, they were summoned by Judge Santos to her office and in front of many people, respondent judge stated "asan na yung dalawang matanda... pumasok kayo uli dito sa opisina." She alleged that Judge Santos was tactless in her statement because she could have just stated "asan na yung dalawang magkapatid."
Complainants further narrated that during the promulgation, the counsel for the private complainant was absent and only the accused (herein complainants) and their counsel were present. They stated that only the dispositive portions of the decisions were read by the branch clerk of court and respondent judge was not in the courtroom at the time of the reading of the decisions.
In her comment dated
Considering that the cases were principally between two sisters, she thought it prudent to avail of a last opportunity to exert efforts to reconcile them. As a matter of course, she stated that one of them would win and the other one would have to lose and that both parties could not be victors in the same case. She maintained that a judgment of conviction will logically aggravate and/or intensify the animosity between the sisters, and further drive the wedge between them deeper. She submits that every magistrate or any officer of the court is duty bound not only to bring justice to the parties but likewise bring peace to the litigants. She alleged that the cases were inherited from her predecessors and she only observed and witnessed the testimony of the last witness for the defense. She surmised that it is but logical to encourage the parties to settle the matter in order to keep their family intact so they could live a harmonious life which will benefit their children and grandchildren.
On
With the end in view of re-establishing family solidarity, as a
last ditch effort to save the relationship of the sisters, or whatever is left
of it, she allegedly gave the parties another week to think things over, to
which the sisters' respective counsel agreed. Consequently, the promulgation
was reset to
She averred that on
Out of the thirty-eight (38) cases scheduled that day, 22 cases
involving detention prisoners were heard and completed at past
With regard to the allegation that she has an interest over the properties involved, she stressed that she does not know the complainant or the accused and categorically denied the allegation. Her sole purpose was mainly to prevent further animosity between the sisters.
She contends that the decisions were based on the evidence presented by both parties. If indeed the accused secured the services of the handwriting expert from the NBI, this witness was not presented to rebut the testimony of the handwriting expert presented by the prosecution.
With regard to the allegation that she referred to the complainant and the accused as "matanda," respondent says that there was definitely no offense meant or intended.
Likewise, she maintains that when she called the parties to enter her chambers, she did not give any preference to anyone of them, but merely called them to give them an opportunity to talk with each other.
She prays for the dismissal of the complaint, which according to her is obviously biased against her, proceeding as it does from disgruntled litigants. She maintains that the complaints substantially contain allegations that are materially inaccurate, narrating some events which did not, however, transpire or occur.
EVALUATION: We find the complaints filed against Judge Santos bereft of merit. At the outset, it can be observed that the administrative complaints proceeded from disgruntled litigants who were convicted by respondent judge. We find nothing irregular in the actuations of respondent judge.
Some judges have the policy of not printing their decisions until
the last minute, to ensure the confidentiality and integrity of their
decisions. The fact that the decisions were not yet printed in the early morning
of 29 September 2003, the date of the promulgation, did not mean that
respondent judge was ill-prepared to render the decisions. As claimed by
respondent judge, the decisions were already prepared as early as
With regard to the allegation that the respondent called the accused and complainant "matanda," we likewise find nothing offensive in the judge's actuation. As stated by respondent judge, if she indeed addressed them as such, no offense was meant or intended. Moreover, we find nothing wrong with her statement because as stated in the complaint of Mrs. Basilisa O. Tan, she is already 70 years old and as such, could indeed be considered as "matanda."
With respect to the occurrences during the promulgation, the
affidavit of Fernando Sundiam, court interpreter of RTC, Branch 72, Antipolo
City, corroborated
the statements of respondent judge. Mr. Sundiam reported that he announced that
Judge Santos would proceed with the promulgation and he asked the parties
whether they wanted the decision read in its [entirety]. The counsel for the
accused allegedly opted for the reading of the dispositive portion only because
it was already past
Anent the allegation that Judge Santos gave credence to the testimony of the expert witness from the prosecution instead of the NBI report, we find this to be within her judicial discretion and beyond the administrative authority of this Office to pass upon. As stated in the case of Godinez vs. Alano, 303 SCRA 259, "In order to merit a disciplinary sanction, the error or mistake committed by a judge should be patent, gross, malicious, deliberate or done in bad faith, and absent a clear showing that the judge has acted arrantly, the issue becomes judicial in character and would not properly warrant the imposition of administrative punishment."
Finally, there was no showing that Judge Santos, in advising the parties to enter into an amicable settlement, was moved by bad faith, gain or ill motive. As stated in her comment, it is "with the end in view of re�establishing family solidarity."
RECOMMENDATION: IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, it is respectfully recommended that the instant administrative complaints filed against Judge Ruth C. Santos, Regional Trial Court, Branch 72, Antipolo City, be DISMISSED for utter lack of merit.
with Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. recommending approval thereof, and finding the evaluation and recommendation therein to be in accord with the facts and the law, the Court approves and adopts the same.
ACCORDINGLY, the instant administrative complaints against Judge Ruth C. Santos are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Executive Officer
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH