Case Digest on Cob C. Dela Cruz v. Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano A.M. No. RTJ-00-1582.

September 4, 2000
November 10, 2010 Facts: Complainant contends, among others, that it took one (1) year and five (5) months instead of three months to render a decision in civil case. The civil case was submitted for decision on April 1996, but the decision thereon was only promulgated on October 8, 1997. Held: GUILTY. It is not disputed that it took respondent Judge one (1) year and five (5) months, after Civil Case No. 908 was submitted for decision, to decide it which is way beyond the three-month period mandated by the Constitution. Section 15 (1) of Article VIII of the Constitution provides that all cases filed before the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three (3) months from date of submission. The Code of Judicial Conduct likewise provides that a judge should administer justice impartially and without delay [Rule 1.02.] and directs a judge to dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. [Rule 3.05.] It is an oft-repeated maxim that justice delayed is often justice denied. Thus, any delay in the administration of justice may result in depriving the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case and will ultimately affect the image of the judiciary. A delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice, brings the court into disrepute and ultimately erodes public faith and confidence in the judiciary.

Case Digest on State Prosecutor Romulo Tolentino vs. Judge Nilo Malanyaon A.M. No. RTJ-99-1444. August 3, 2000 Prompt Disposition of Cases/ Inefficiency/Abuse of Authority
November 10, 2010 Facts: Judge Nilo Malanyaon, presiding judge of Branch 30 of the RTC of Camarines Sur, dismissed 5 separate criminal cases for lack of evidence and also refused to issue warrants of arrest on the ground of lack of probable cause. Acting State Prosecutor for Camarines Sur Romulo Tolentino assailed the orders for dismissal and the refusal to issue the warrants for arrest alleging that Judge Malanyaon had abused his authority and knowingly rendered unjust orders. Tolentino also complained that several motions had been filed before respondent judge and have yet to be resolved and decided upon. Issues: (1) Did Judge Malanyaon exercise grave abuse of discretion and act in excess of jurisdiction in dismissing the criminal cases? (2) Was Judge Malanyaon guilty of unreasonable delay for failing to act on the motions filed by State Prosecutor Tolentino? Held: (1) NO. The allegations that respondent judge had violated Canons 1, 2 and 3 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct are without merit. Good faith and absence of malice, corrupt or improper consideration are sufficient defenses protecting a judicial officer charged with ignorance of the law and promulgation of an unjust decision from being held accountable for errors of judgment on the premise that no one called upon to try the facts or interpret the law in the administration of justice can be infallible. There is no proof of grave abuse of discretion. These charges were dismissed by the Court. (2) YES. The motions/incidents were left unacted upon from 3 to 5 months and were still pending when the administrative complaint was filed against respondent. Respondent should be aware of his duties as an arbiter of justice. Under Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge shall dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. While the prosecutor in this case is not without fault, the respondent cannot escape responsibility for his inaction of the pending motions before him. Even assuming arguendo that the various motions filed by the prosecutor were considered to be mere scraps of paper or without merit, the judge must nevertheless resolve on those matters promptly by granting or denying them. It is the duty of the judge to rule upon the motions filed before him even if his actions are merely to deny them. Respondent judge was found guilty for his failure to resolve pending motions and/or incidents and, accordingly, a penalty of

reprimand was imposed upon him with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar violation will be dealt with a more severe penalty by the Court.

Case Digest on Romulo Tolentino v. Judge Policarpio S. Camano, Jr. A.M. RTJ-00-1522 January 20, 2000 Judge Granting of Bail
November 10, 2010 Facts: Respondent Judge is being charged with gross ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, grave abuse of authority, violation of Canons 1, 2, and 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics and incompetence in connection with granting bail to the accused in a criminal case for child abuse. The complaint alleges that respondent Judge granted bail while pending the holding of a preliminary investigation. The defense moved to quash the information against the accused on the alleged absence of a preliminary investigation. Consequently, respondent Judge ordered that a preliminary investigation be had by the state prosecutor. During the pendency of this, he granted bail in favor of the defendant after several notices of hearing to the state prosecutor to which the latter failed to appear. After such grant, complainant herein now accuses respondent of denying the prosecution the chance to adduce evidence to show that the guilt of the accused was strong and that bail should not have been granted in his favor. Held: NOT GUILTY. There was no denial of due process. It was not necessary to hold hearing so that the prosecution could show that evidence of guilt of the accused was strong since a preliminary investigation had been ordered by the court. At that point, bail was still a matter of right. Respondent judge, knowing that bail was indeed a matter of right at that stage, nevertheless set the hearing for the petition for bail four times. However, complainant failed to appear and present evidence to show that the guilt of the accused was strong. It thus appears that complainant is actually the one who was remiss in the performance of his duties. Considering that the case was referred to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor for preliminary investigation, the accused could be considered as entitled to bail as a matter of right. Thus, respondent judges decision granting bail to the accused was proper and in accordance with law and jurisprudence.

Case Digest on Soliman M. Santos, Jr. v. Atty. Francisco R. Llamas A.C. No. 4749. January 20, 2000 Misrepresentation and Non-payment of IBP Dues
November 10, 2010 Facts: Complaint for misrepresentation and non-payment of bar membership dues. It appears that Atty. Llamas, who for a number of years now, has not indicated the proper PTR and IBP OR Nos. and data in his pleadings. If at all, he only indicated IBP Rizal 259060 but he has been using this for at least 3 years already. On the other hand, respondent, who is now of age, averred that he is only engaged in a limited practice of law and under RA 7432, as a senior citizen, he is exempted from payment of income taxes and included in this exemption is the payment of membership dues. Held: GUILTY. Rule 139-A requires that every member of the Integrated Bar shall pay annual dues and default thereof for six months shall warrant suspension of membership and if nonpayment covers a period of 1-year, default shall be a ground for removal of the delinquents name from the Roll of Attorneys. It does not matter whether or not respondent is only engaged in limited practice of law. Moreover, the exemption invoked by respondent does not include exemption from payment of membership or association dues. In addition, by indicating IBP Rizal 259060 in his pleadings and thereby misprepresenting to the public and the courts that he had paid his IBP dues to the Rizal Chpater, respondent is guilty of violating the Code of Professional Responsibility which provides: Rule 1.01 A lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. His act is also a violation of Rule 10.01 which provides that: A lawyer shall not do any falsehood, nor consent to the doing of any in court; nor mislead or allow the court to be misled by any artifice. Lawyer was suspended for 1 year or until he has paid his IBP dues, whichever is later.

Antonio M. Llorente and Ligaya P. Salayon A.C. No. 4690. August 29, 2000
November 10, 2010 Facts: Attys. Antonio Llorente and Ligaya Salayon were election officers of the COMELEC and held the position of Chairman and Vice Case Digest on Aquilino Q. Pimentel, Jr. vs. Attys. -Chairman respectively for the Pasig City Board of Candidates. The respondents helped conduct and oversee the 1995 elections. Then Senatorial candidate Aquilino Pimentel, Jr. alleged that the respondents tampered with the votes received by them by either adding more votes for particular candidates in their Statement of Votes (SoV) or reducing the number of votes of particular candidates in their SoV. Pimentel filed an administrative complaint for their disbarment. Respondents argued that the discrepancies were due to honest mistake, oversight and fatigue. Respondents also argued that the IBP Board of Governors had already exonerated them from any offense and that the motion for reconsideration filed by Pimentel was not filed in time. Held: GUILTY. Respondents do not dispute the fact that massive irregularities attended the canvassing of the Pasig City election returns. The only explanation they could offer for such irregularities is that the same could be due to honest mistake, human error, and/or fatigue on the part of the members of the canvassing committees who prepared the SoVs. There is a limit, we believe, to what can be construed as an honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, in the performance of official duty. The sheer magnitude of the error renders the defense of honest mistake or oversight due to fatigue, as incredible and simply unacceptable. Indeed, what is involved here is not just a case of mathematical error in the tabulation of votes per precinct as reflected in the election returns and the subsequent entry of the erroneous figures in one or two SoVs but a systematic scheme to pad the votes of certain senatorial candidates at the expense of the petitioner in complete disregard of the tabulation in the election returns. A lawyer who holds a government position may not be disciplined as a member of the bar for misconduct in the discharge of his duties as a government official. However, if the misconduct also constitutes a violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility or the lawyers oath or is of such character as to affect his qualification as a lawyer or shows moral delinquency on his part, such individual may be disciplined as a member of the bar for such misconduct. Here, by certifying as true and correct the SoVs in question, respondents committed a breach of Rule 1.01 of the Code which stipulates that a lawyer shall not engage in unlawful, dishonest, immoral or deceitful conduct. By express provision of Canon 6, this is made applicable to lawyers in the government service. In addition, they likewise violated their oath of office as lawyers to do no falsehood. The Court found the respondents guilty of misconduct and fined them PhP 10,000 each and issued a stern warning that similar conduct in the future will be severely punished.