VICENTE M. BATIC, Complainant vs. JUDGE VICTORIO L. GALAPON, JR.

, Municipal
Trial Court of Dulag, Leyte, Respondent

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1239

Judge Involved JUDGE VICTORIO L. GALAPON,
JR.
Date of promulgation July 29, 2005
Ponente ADOLFO S. AZCUNA.

FACTS  Complainant charged respondent judge with graft and corruption,

grave abuse of authority, gross ignorance of the law, dishonesty
and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
 The complainant claimed with an attached warrant of arrest dated
March 18, 1997 and a complaint dated March 20, 1997, that the
respondent issued a warrant of arrest against him and his co-
accused in the aforesaid case two days before the complaint was
filed.
 The complainant Batic also charged respondent with engaging in
unauthorized notarial practice.
OCA’s findings  Citing Circular No. 1-90, the Court Administrator found respondent
to have exceeded his authority in acting as notary public ex-officio
and notarizing the Deed of Absolute Sale because when he did so,
there was a notary public in respondent’s station at Dulag, Leyte in
the person of Atty. Celerino Refuerzo. The fact that Atty. Refuerzo
was temporarily out of town on January 25, 1990, the date he
notarized the questioned Deed of Absolute Sale, did not make the
situation fall under the exception contemplated in the Circular.
Moreover, the notarized document contained no certification
"attesting to the lack of any lawyer or notary public in such
municipality or circuit" as required in proviso No. 2 of the
exception.
 The Court Administrator recommended that the case be re-
docketed as a regular Administrative Matter and that respondent
be ordered to pay a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (₱3,000) for
unauthorized notarization of a private document, with a warning
that commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
 The OAC held that the complaints should be dismissed with
respect to respondent’s issuance of the warrant of arrest because
the inconsistency of the dates in the warrant and criminal
complaint are simply procedural lapses made in good faith.
 With regard to the notarization of a Deed of Absolute Sale, it
 disagreed with the findings and recommendation of Investigating
Judge Gil that respondent judge should be exonerated. Reasoning
out that the rule on the power of the MTC and MCTC judges to act
as notaries public ex-officio has been established even before the
issuance of Circular No. 1-90 dated 26 February 1990.
 The OAC held Judge Galapon, Jr., to have engaged in unauthorized
notarial work, he should be fined the amount of Eleven Thousand
Pesos (₱11,000).
Findings of the  In the case at hand, the question is not even whether these
Court requisites were met. The question is whether or not Judge
Galapon abused his authority when there appeared a discrepancy
between the dates the complaint and the warrant of arrest were
issued in the criminal case involving the complainants
 The incident regarding the issuance of warrant of arres was an
inconsistency wherein it is found to be a mere slip in procedure,
committed in good faith and in consideration of the fact that
therein complainants lived in a barangay far from the town proper
of Dulag. Furthermore, neither of the complainants’ rights were
ever prejudiced. As stated by the OCA in its report, the important
thing was that the warrant of arrest was not issued or released for
implementation before the filing of the complaint.
 The complaints should be dismissed with regard to the issuance of
the warrant of arrest.
Ruling  The complaints filed with respect to the issuance of a warrant of
arrest are dismissed.
 The complaints charging notarization of a private document,
respondent judge is found guilty of unauthorized notarization of a
private document, and was ordered to pay a fine of Twenty
Thousand Pesos (₱20,000), with a warning that a repetition of the
same will be punished more severely.

ASUNCION REYES, Complainant, vs. JUDGE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA, Regional Trial

Court, Branch 28, Mambajao, Camiguin, Respondent.

A.M. No. RTJ-06-1973

Judge Involved JUDGE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA
Date of promulgation March 14, 2008
Ponente MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ.

FACTS  Reyes (complainant) filed a complaint against Judge Rustico D.

Paderanga (respondent) with bias, ignorance of the law and
procedure, antedating orders, failure to resolve cases within the
reglementary period and refusal to inhibit in several cases pending
before his court.
 Complainant avers that respondent was guilty of gross ignorance
of the law particularly of Section 9, Rule 39 of the Rules of Court
when he ordered the garnishment of complainant's Dollar Deposit
Account with the Philippine National Bank (PNB) in the amount of
US$10,000.00 when the judgment debt was only ₱100,000.00; and
undue delay in resolving a motion, as it took him 105 days to
resolve complainant's motion to withdraw deposit in excess of
₱100,000.00.
 The cmplainant claims that the respondent refused to act on the
motion to withdraw, saying that he would not allow the
withdrawal of any amount as long as the other party would object.
When complainant filed a Motion to Inhibit citing Section 9, Rule
39 of the Rules of Court, however, respondent was prompted to
grant complainant's motion to withdraw, which he dated as
December 6, 2004 but mailed on December 17, 2004, to make it
appear that said order was not a reaction to the Motion to Inhibit.
Complainant further asserts that respondent rendered his decision
in this case only on May 18, 2005 or 1 year and 14 days after the
case was submitted for decision.
 Finally, complainant states that respondent was biased and
prejudiced, and that he acted with vengeance on account of
complainant's Motion to Inhibit.
Findings of the  Of the many charges hurled against respondent, only two were
Court duly proven: gross ignorance of the law and procedure for
dismissing Civil Case No. 517; and delay in resolving a motion in
Civil Case No. 676, for which the imposition of fines in the
amounts of ₱20,000.00 and ₱15,000.00, respectively, is
recommended.

Ruling  In administrative proceedings, the complainant bears the onus of

establishing, by substantial evidence, the averments of her
complaint. Substantial evidence is such evidence which a
reasonable mind will accept as sufficient to support a conclusion.
If complainant fails to discharge said burden, respondent cannot
be held liable for the charge.
 ASUNCION REYES, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE RUSTICO D. PADERANGA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 28,
Mambajao, Camiguin, Respondent
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1973
Judge Involved JUSTICE CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
JUSTICE MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
JUSTICE ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
JUSICE RUBEN T. REYES
Date of promulgation March 14, 2008
Ponente MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Facts  Asuncion Reyes filed an Administrative
Complaint against Judge Rustico D. Paderanga,
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 28, Mambajao, Camiguin on July 14,
2005 due to bias, ignorance of the law and
procedure, antedating orders, failure to resolve
cases within the reglementary period and refusal
to inhibit in several cases pending before his
court.
 These charges emanate from five civil cases;
Civil Case No. 676, where the complainant
asserts that there is an undue delay in resolving a
motion and such delay aggravates due to the fact
that the reason for the filing of the motion is to
use the money buy the complainant’s mother a
medicine; Civil Case No. 517, Civil Case No.
681 and Civil Case No. 687, where the
respondent shows biases and constitute undue
delays when there are cases involving his
relatives within the fifth civil degree; Civil Case
No. 683, where Complainant alleges that
respondent took 105 days to resolve a motion to
dismiss, and that he was guilty of bias, hostility
and ignorance of the law;
OCA’s Report  In Justice Dy-Liacco Flores' report, many
charges hurled against Judge Rustico D.
Paderanga only two were duly proven: gross
ignorance of the law and procedure for
dismissing Civil Case No. 517; and delay in
resolving a motion in Civil Case No. 676, for
which the imposition of fines in the amounts of
₱20,000.00 and ₱15,000.00, respectively, is
 recommended.
Finding of the Court  Respondent's only defense on this point is that,
from the time complainant filed her motion on
August 23, 2004 until he issued his Resolution
on December 6, 2004, the interval is only a little
over three months; and that, in between, the
parties filed several pleadings setting forth their
respective arguments, which respondent had to
consider before resolving the motion.
 Indeed, records show that after complainant filed
a Motion to Withdraw Deposits, the opposing
party, upon order of respondent, filed a
Comment on September 1, 2004; thereafter,
complainant filed a Reply on October 4, 2004, to
which another Comment was filed on October
25, 2004
 The Investigating Justice also found that
respondent incurred a delay of 19 days in
deciding the appeal in Civil Case No. 676.
Considering
 The Constitution provides that all lower courts
must decide or resolve cases or matters brought
before them three months from the time a case or
matter is submitted for decision.
 Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which
became effective on June 1, 2004, also provides
that judges shall perform all duties, including the
delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly
and with reasonable promptness.
 The Court usually allows reasonable extensions
of time to decide cases in recognition of the
heavy caseload of the trial courts.
 As respondent failed to ask for an extension in
this case, he is deemed to have incurred delay.
 Undue delay in rendering a decision or order,
under Rule 140 as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-
10-SC, is a less serious charge punishable with
either suspension from office without salary and
benefits for not less than one or more than three
months, or a fine of more than ₱10,000.00 but
not exceeding ₱20,000.00. In many cases, the
Court has imposed a fine upon judges who failed
 to decide cases within the prescribed period.
Ruling  The court ruled that respondent Judge Rustico D.
Paderanga is GUILTY of gross ignorance of the
law for, which he is fined ₱20,000.00; and undue
delay in resolving a motion and in deciding an
appeal, for which he is fined ₱15,000.00 with a
STERN WARNING that a more severe penalty
will be meted out for the commission of similar
offense in the future.
RE: EVALUATION OF ADMINISTRATIVE LIABILITY OF HON. ANTONIO C. LUBAO, BRANCH 22, REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, GENERAL SANTOS CITY, WHO COMPULSORILY RETIRED ON JANUARY 13, 2015, IN
CONNECTION WITH THE CASES SUBJECT OF THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED THEREAT FROM MAY 19-
22, 2014, AND OTHER RELEVANT DIRECTIVES ISSUED BY THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR
A.M. No. 15-09-314-RTC
Judge Involved HON. ANTONIO C. LUBAO
Date of promulgation April 19, 2016
Ponente BRION, J.
Facts In the judicial audit and physical inventory conducted by the OCA
on Judge Antonio C. Lubao’s court from May 19 to 22, 2014, the
number of pending cases and matters discovered were: sixty-eight
(68) cases submitted for decision, sixty-one (61) cases already
beyond the reglementary period to decide, forty-one (41) cases
with pending incidents, twenty-nine (29) cases already beyond the
prescribed period to resolve, forty-one (41) cases have yet to be
acted upon, one hundred fifty-one (151) court processes– which
returns have yet to be received by the court, with most cases
already due for archiving.
In a July 21, 2014 Memorandum, the OCA asked Judge Lubao to
take appropriate action on the cases subject of the audit, including
the observations made by the Audit Team in their report, and to
submit his compliance within sixty (60) days from notice. Also, the
OCA required Judge Lubao to submit an explanation within fifteen
(15) days from notice for his omissions.
On December 9, 2014, Clerk of Court Atty. Marivic E. Fillalan of
RTC Branch 22, General Santos City submitted to the OCA copies
of the decisions and orders in some of the cases subject of the
audit, in partial compliance to the OCA’s July 21, 2014
Memorandum. She mentioned in her submission that Judge
Lubao’s explanation will soon follow, but the OCA never received
the promised explanation.
Judge Lubao submitted his compliance only in August 2015. He
admitted to his failure to resolve many incidents and to decide
cases submitted for decision within the reglementary period. He
expounded on his medical history and attached several medical
certificates. He explained that his health condition and frequent
hospitalizations prevented him from deciding cases submitted for
decision, resolving incidents within the reglementary period, and
submitting an explanation to the memoranda issued by the OCA.
 Judge Lubao concluded his letter by requesting: (i) to have his case
referred to the Court’s doctors and psychologist for assistance in
the technical evaluation of the merits of his case, and (ii) to have
his retirement check be prepared and authorized as soon as
possible because he would be needing money for a stent
operation for two (2) cardio arterial blockages and another
operation on his lower spine.
OCA’s Report In its September 11, 2015 Memorandum, the OCA found Judge
Lubao to have committed the following offenses:

1. repeated failure to comply with the directives of this Office, to

wit Memorandum dated January 15, 2014; Memorandum dated
April 23, 2014; Memorandum dated May 7, 2014; Memorandum
dated July 21, 2014; and Memorandum dated November 11, 2014;

2. violation of the following Supreme Court rules, directives, and

circulars: Administrative Circular No. 4-2004; Administrative
Circular No. 81-2012; and OCA Circular No. 81-2012;

3. undue delay in rendering decisions or orders, among others: 60

cases decided beyond the reglementary period; 35 cases with
pending incidents resolved beyond the reglementary period; and 47
cases which have not progressed as of audit date, and failure to
resolve 3 cases with pending incidents and act upon 7 cases; and

4. undue delay in the submission of Monthly Reports of Cases from

January to December, 2014.

Furthermore, OCA recommended that Judge Lubao be fined the

amount of P100,000.00.
Finding of the Court We concur with the OCA’s findings and recommendations.

In the instant case, Judge Lubao was able to decide/resolve all the
cases submitted for decision/resolution and majority of the cases
with pending incidents/for appropriate action before he retires.
However, this Office has to underscore his gross inefficiency
considering that among the cases he neglected were cases that were
already due as early as year 2004 and 2001 – the period of delay in
the bulk of the cases submitted for decision ranges from 4 to 10
years. As to cases with pending incidents for resolution, the delay
ranged from 2 to 13 years. To compound his omissions, he
belatedly submitted his compliance with the numerous directives of
this Office, and repeatedly ignored the show-cause orders sent to
 him, which, to reiterate, constitute misconduct and insubordination.

Judge Lubao knew from the start of his career in the Judiciary that
he is afflicted with the illnesses mentioned in his letter of
explanation but never bothered to inform this Court early on about
his condition. Aware of his condition, Judge Lubao could have
simply asked this Court for a reasonable extension of time to
dispose of his cases. The Court, cognizant of the heavy case load of
some of our judges and mindful of the difficulties they encounter in
the disposition of their cases, is almost always disposed to grant
such requests on meritorious grounds.

We have stressed that "delay in case disposition is a major culprit

in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judiciary and
the lowering of its standards."
Ruling The Court adjudges former JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, General Santos City GUILTY of the
following offenses: Gross Misconduct, Violation of Supreme Court
Rules, Firectives, and Circulars, Undue Delay in Rendering a
Decision or Order, and Undue Delay in the Submission of Monthly
Reports.
JUDGE ANTONIO C. LUBAO is hereby meted the penalty of a FINE
in the total amount of SIXTY-FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P65,000.00).
Considering that the Court has already withheld the amount of
one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) from Judge Lubao’s
retirement benefits, we shall declare the amount of sixty-five
thousand pesos (P65,000.00) forfeited as payment for the fine
imposed herein and the amount of thirty-five thousand pesos
(P35,000.00) returned to Judge Lubao.
 OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner,
vs.
CASALAN, [FORMERLY A.M. N0.14-4-115-RTC (REPORT ON THE FINANCIAL
AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], BRANCHES 13
AND 65, CULASI AND BUGASONG, ANTIQUE)]. Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2385
Judge Involved JUDGE ROMEO B. CASALAN
Date of promulgation April 20, 2016
Ponente PERALTA, J.:
Facts On August 7 and 8, 2012, the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) conducted a judicial audit and inventory of cases conducted
in Branch 13 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Culasi, Antique,
and Branch 65 of the RTC of Bugasong, Antique, both presided
over by the Hon. Romeo B. Casalan as regular judge and acting
presiding judge, respectively.
In a Memorandum dated August 30, 2012, the Judicial Audit Team
of OCA the reported that as of August 8, 2012, Branch 13, the
regular court of Judge Casalan, has a caseload of Two Hundred
and Twelve (212) pending cases.
In a Memorandum dated August 28, 2012, the Judicial Audit Team
of the OCA also reported that as of August 7, 2012, Branch 65,
where Judge Casalan was designated as acting presiding judge, has
a caseload of Two Hundred and Thirty-two (232) pending cases.
As a result of the foregoing judicial audit and inventory of cases,
the OCA, through the said memoranda dated August 28 and 30,
2012, directed Judge Casalan to explain the undue delay and
immediately act on the pending cases.
On September 30, 2013, the OCA directed Judge Casalan to
explain his failure to submit copies of the decisions with regard to
the audit conducted in Branch 13, RTC of Culasi, Antique, with a
warning that the matter will be reported to the Court for the filing
of appropriate administrative charges should he still fail to abide
by the directives of the OCA.
Judge Casalan failed to comply with the OCA directives until he
reached the mandatory retirement age of Seventy (70) years old
on March 2, 2014.
 OCA’s Report It is clear that Judge Casalan should be administratively held liable
under Section 9(1) and Section 11 (b), Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court and Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary for undue delay in rendering a decision
or order and for his defiance to comply with the OCA directives.

Considering the number of cases that were left undecided and

motions unresolved and the fact that he defied the orders sent to
him, the maximum penalty of suspension from office for three (3)
months is in order. However, in view of Judge Casalan's retirement
from the service on March 2, 2014, the only penalty that the Court
can impose against him is a fine, pursuant to the rule that the
retirement of a judge does not release him from liability incurred
while in the active service. As such, in its Memorandum dated
March 6, 2014, the OCA recommended that Judge Casalan be fined
a penalty of fine equivalent to three (3) month’s salary at the time
his retirement.

Finding of the Court The Court sustains the findings and recommendation of the OCA.

Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution states that judges must
decide all cases within three months from the date of submission.

Rule 1.02, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that

judges should administer justice without delay. Rule 3.05 of Canon
3 states that judges shall dispose of the court's business promptly
and decide cases within the required periods.

Judges must closely adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct in

order to preserve the integrity, competence and independence of the
judiciary and make the administration of justice more efficient.
Time and again, we have stressed the need to strictly observe this
duty so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not totally
eradicate, the twin problem of congestion and delay that have long
plagued our courts.
Ruling The Supreme Court finds JUDGE ROMEO B. CASALAN of the
Regional Trial Court of Culasi, Antique, Branch 13, GUILTY of the
less serious charges of undue delay in rendering decision or order
and of violation of Supreme Court rules and directives, under
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Pursuant to Section 11 of
the same Rule, he is ORDERED to pay a FINE in the amount
equivalent to Three (3) months' salary at the time of his
retirement for undue delay in the disposition of cases and for
 insubordination, to be deducted from his retirement/gratuity
benefits.

DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, represented by SECRETARY LEILA M. DE

LIMA, Petitioner,
vs.
JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG, Presiding Judge, Branch 167, Regional Trial Court,
Pasig City, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369
Judge Involved JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG
Date of promulgation July 26, 2016
Ponente SERENO, J.
Facts The National Bureau of Investigation (NBI), on October 29, 2010,
recommended that a preliminary investigation be conducted in
view of the Pag-IBIG Fund/Home Development Mutual Fund
(HDMF)’s Complaint Affidavit against Delfin S. Lee and other
officers of Globe Asiatique Realty Holdings Corporation (Globe
Asiatique) for the crime of syndicated estafa constituting
economic sabotage under Presidential Decree No. 1689, in
relation to Article 315(2)(a) of the Revised Penal Code, through the
fraudulent take-out of housing loans for fake borrowers in which
the HDMF suffered damages in the amount of about P6.5 Billion.
The DOJ then formed a panel of prosecutors to investigate the
complaint, which was docketed as NPS Docket No. XVI-INV-lOJ-
00319 (1st DOJ case). On November 15, 2010, Lee, together with
Globe Asiatique, filed a Complaint for specific performance and
damages against the HDMF before the Makati RTC.
On December 10, 2010, the NBI Anti-Graft Division recommended
that Lee, among others, be charged with the crime of syndicated
estafa constituting economic sabotage which was docketed as NPS
Docket No. XVI-INV-lOL-00363 (2nd DOJ case). On January 27,
2011, Lee filed a Petition seeking the suspension of the
proceedings in the 2nd DOJ case pending the outcome of the
Makati civil case, because there were issues in the civil case which
purportedly constituted a prejudicial question to the 2nd DOJ
case. However, the DOJ panel issued an Omnibus Order dated
February 21, 2011 denying the said petition for lack of common
issues and parties.
 On August 5, 2011, Lee's counsel inquired if the DOJ's counsel
would be willing to enter into a stipulation with regard to the
existence of the 2nd DOJ case and the Makati civil case. After the
counsel of the DOJ had acceded to said request, the parties, with
the permission of Judge Mislang, then agreed to submit for
resolution the petition for injunction upon submission of their
respective memoranda within fifteen (15) days.
On August 12, 2011, after Lee had submitted his memorandum, he
filed an unverified Urgent Motion for the ex-parte resolution of his
application for the issuance of a TRO which was, without waiting
for the DOJ's memorandum, granted by Judge Mislang thru Orders
dated August 16, 2011 and August 26, 2011.

OCA’s Report The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended in

both Complaints that Judge Mislang be found guilty of gross
ignorance of the law and be dismissed from service, with forfeiture
of retirement benefits except leave credits, and with prejudice to re-
employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government-owned and controlled corporations.

Finding of the Court The Court finds no compelling reason to deviate from the findings
and recommendations of the OCA.

The application for TRO for the 2nd DOJ case was incorporated in
the petition for injunction. However, the DOJ was not given any
notice of Lee's Urgent Motion for ex-parte resolution of his TRO
application. And despite the parties' agreement in court to submit
for resolution said petition for injunction only upon submission of
their respective memoranda, Judge Mislang granted Lee's
application for TRO without waiting for the DOJ's memorandum.
He never conducted a hearing on either the application for TRO or
on the motion for resolution of the TRO. Clearly, this is in violation
of the DOJ's constitutional right to be heard and to due process.

There was also a wanton disregard of the DOJ’s right to due

process Judge Mislang granted the TRO for the 1st DOJ case
because DOJ was not properly served with a copy of the petition or
the urgent motion for hearing.

The antecedent incidents of the case brought before Judge Mislang

were clear and simple, as well as the applicable rules.
Unfortunately, he miserably failed to properly apply the principles
and rules on three (3) points, i.e., the prematurity of the petition,
 the inapplicability of the prejudicial question, and the lack of
jurisdiction of the court. His persistent disregard of well-known
elementary rules in favor of Lee clearly reflects his bad faith and
partiality.
Ruling JUDGE ROLANDO G. MISLANG, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial
Court, Pasig City, Branch 167, is found GUILTY of Gross Ignorance
of the Law in A.M. No. RTJ-14-2369 and A.M. No. RTJ-14-2372 and
ORDERS his DISMISSAL from the service with FORFEITURE of
retirement benefits, except leave credits, and with prejudice to re-
employment in any branch or instrumentality of the government,
including government-owned and controlled corporations.
CEFERINA B. RIVERA, COURT STENOGRAPHER III, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT OF DAV AO CITY, DAVAO DEL SUR, BRANCH 12 vs.
PRESIDING JUDGE RUFINO S. FERRARIS, JR., MUNICIPAL TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES OF DAVAO CITY, BRANCH 7
OCA IPI No. 14-2731-MTJ
Judge Involved JUDGE RUFINO S. FERRARIS, JR.
Date of promulgation August 30, 2016
Ponente PERLAS-BERNABE, J.
Facts A case initiated by Ceferina B. Rivera, a
court stenographer, against Judge Ferraris,
Jr. regarding his complicity to the money-
lending business of the former. Rivera
admitted being involved in money-lending
activities to add to her small salary. She
added that the business was done in good
faith and that she had no intention in
dragging down the good name of her
office. Judge Ferraris Jr. was one of the
people whom Rivera convinced to invest in
said business as he would earn a monthly
interest of five percent through his Php
100,000 investment. Subsequently, Rivera
issued him a check as guarantee and was
paid the agreed interest for four months.
With the failure to pay the succeeding
interests as well as the principal amounts,
Judge Ferraris Jr. had the checks he
received from Rivera dishonored when he
tried to cash them in this was because it
was being drawn from a closed
account.This resulted to him filing a
criminal case against her.

Rivera explained the reason why her

business flopped was because majority of
 her borrowers failed to pay their monthly
obligations and that financial troubles
arising from Typhoon Pablo in 2012 was
also one of the factors that contributed to
her business failing. Rivera continued by
saying that Judge Ferraris Jr. went to her
office, while she was on leave, several
times and gave death threats if she did not
pay him back. In addition to this, Rivera
clarified that she already had paid Judge
Ferraris Jr. as well as the others who
invested in her said business which led to
the withdrawal of criminal complaints
against her. Rivera filed an administrative
case against Judge Ferraris Jr.in relation to
the threats she claimed she received from
him, in view of this, OCA recommended a
separate administrative comlaint against
said judge regarding the latter's
involvement in the money-lending activity.
OCA’s Report As regards Judge Ferraris, Jr., the OCA
agreed with the conclusion of Judge
Fuentes that there is not enough evidence
to show that he took advantage of his
position as a judge in order to receive any
monetary gain from Rivera's money
lending business. This notwithstanding, the
OCA recommended that Judge Ferraris, Jr.
be admonished for his lack of concern in
taking steps to prevent Rivera from
conducting her trade and even expressly
supporting it by investing money therein.
Finding of the Court As regards Judge Ferraris, Jr., suffice it to
say that the OCA correctly recommended
the dismissal of the case against him as
there is not enough evidence to show that
he exploited his position to receive
monetary benefit from Rivera's money-
lending activities. However, he must
nevertheless be admonished for his lack of
concern in taking steps to prevent Rivera
from conducting her trade and, in fact,
condoned it by investing money into the
 same.

It is well to reiterate that "those in the

Judiciary serve as sentinels of justice, and
any act of impropriety on their part
immeasurably affects the honor and dignity
of the Judiciary and the people's
confidence in it. The Institution demands
the best possi~le individuals in the service
and it had never and will never tolerate nor
condone any conduct which would violate
the norms of public accountability, and
diminish, or even tend to diminish, the
faith of the people in the justice system. As
such, the Court will not hesitate to rid its
ranks of undesirables who undermine its
efforts towards an effective and efficient
administration of justice, thus tainting its
image in the eyes of the public."37

Ruling The Court DISMISSES the administrative

case against Presiding Judge Rufino S.
Ferraris, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities of Davao City, Branch 7, docketed
as OCA IPI No. 14-2371-MTJ, for lack of
sufficient evidence. This notwithstanding,
he is hereby ADMONISHED to be more
vigilant in taking steps to prevent officials
and employees of the Judiciary from
engaging in prohibited activities.
 TRINIDAD GAMBOA-ROCES
vs.
JUDGE RANHEL A. PEREZ, Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Enrique Magalona-Manapla, Negros Occidental
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887
Judge Involved JUDGE RANHEL A. PEREZ
Date of January 9, 2017
promulgation
Ponente MENDOZA, J.
Facts A case of gross ignorance of the law for the failure of a judge to
render judgment on consolidated ejectment cases within the
reglementary period as prescribed by law.

Trinidad Gamboa-Roces, complainant, was one of the plaintiffs

in a civil case for unlawful detainer and damages that was
referred to the MCTC wherein a newly appointed Judge, Judge
Perez, will be assigned to. Meanwhile acting Presiding Judge,
Judge Arsenio resetted the case for preliminary conference to
when Judge Perez would assume office. The counsel of Peres
Filed two separate motions for his inhibition in the two cases as
she was previously involved in a legal confrontation with Judge
Perez himself when he was representing his parents, said
motions however, were denied. On March 11, 2014, the two
cases were consolidated. Subsequently, the parties were then
required to file their respective position papers after the
preliminary conference for the cases. On November 21, 2014,
Judge Perez then issued an Order, submitting the cases for
resolution. Complainant averred that Judge Perez was in
violation of the 30-day reglementary period within which to
decide an ejectment case as there was a failure in his part to
make a decision on the cases for more than ten months.
 Judge Perez admitted to the delay but he did not intend for such
to happen which would prejudice the plaintiffs. He claims that
he was able to finish the final draft on December 1, 2014.
However, he still wanted to polish a few things in said decision
and did not forward it to his Clerk of Court. This was followed
by other reasons which led him to misplace the drafted decision.
OCA’s Report Recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular
administrative matter and that "Judge Perez be found GUILTY
of undue delay in rendering a decision or order and be
ADMONISHED to be more mindful in the performance of his
duties particularly in the prompt disposition of cases pending
and/or submitted for decision/resolution before his court, with a
STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same, or any similar
infraction shall be dealt with severely."9
Finding of the Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution requires the
Court lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters for decision or
final resolution within three (3) months from date of submission.
In complaints for forcible entry and unlawful detainer as in this
case, Section 10 of the Rules on Summary Procedure
specifically requires that the complaint be resolved within thirty
(30) days from receipt of the last affidavits and position papers.
Without any order of extension granted by this Court, failure to
decide even a single case within the required period constitutes
gross inefficiency. 10

Sections 2 and 5 of Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial

Conduct enjoin the judges to devote their professional activity to
judicial duties and to perform them, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable
promptness. This obligation to render decision promptly is
further emphasized in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 which
reminds all judges to meticulously observe the periods
prescribed by the Constitution for deciding cases because failure
to comply with the prescribed period transgresses the parties'
constitutional right to speedy disposition of their cases.11

A judge is expected to keep his own listing of cases and to note

therein the status of each case so that they may be acted upon
accordingly and without delay. He must adopt a system of record
management and organize his docket in order to monitor the
flow of cases for a prompt and effective dispatch of business. 16
Ruling Under Sections 9 and 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as
amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, 17 undue delay in rendering a
decision is a less serious charge punishable by either (a)
suspension from the service without salary and other benefits for
not less than one month nor more than three months; or (b) a fine
of more than ₱10,000.00 but not more than ₱20,000.00.

Judge Ranhel A. Perez, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, E.B.

Magalona-Manapla, Negros Occidental, GUILTY of undue
delay in rendering a decision, the Court hereby orders him to pay
a FINE in the amount of TEN THOUSAND
PESOS (₱10,000.00), with STERN WARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
 FREDDIE J. FARRES and ORWEN L. TRAZO v. JUDGE EDGARDO B. DIAZ DE
RIVERA, JR. BRANCH 10, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, LA TRINIDAD BENGUET
# A.M. No. RTJ-16-2462
Judge Involved JUDGE EDGARDO B. DIAZ DE RIVERA, JR.
Date of promulgation OCTOBER 14, 2019
Ponente INTING, J.
Facts Complainants herein filed a complaint against respondent judge for
violation of Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act as well as
Section 1, Canon 3 and Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Complainants allege that they were private complainants in

Criminal Case No. 11-CR-8444 assigned to the sala of respondent
judge which has been pending for more than three years.

In his comment, respondent judge explained that the postponement

of trials was due to the absence of the accused and the accused’s
counsel, among others. In addition, respondent Judge stressed that
he suffered a stroke which resulted in him having to take multiple
leaves of absences from work.
OCA’s Report The OCA found that respondent judge is liable for violation of
Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars in insuring speedy
disposition of cases.
Finding of the Court While the Court is emphatic towards the judge’s ill fate, it was still
incumbent upon him to inform the Court, through the OCA, of his
inability to decide the case before him for the demands of public
illness do not abide by his illness.
Similarly, in the case of Juson vs Judge Mondragon, the Court
ruled that “in case of poor health, the Judge concerned needs only
to ask this court for an extension of time to resolved
 cases/incidents, as soon as it becomes clear to him that there
would be a delay in the disposition thereof”.
In the imposition of penalty, the Court took into account the health
of the respondent and the fact that this is his first administrative
infraction, as well as the fact that respondent judge requested
before the OCA for an assisting judge and that OCA appointed an
assisting judge to Branch 10 to hear pending cases in the said
Court.
Ruling The Court found Judge Edgardo B. Diaz De Rivera, Jr. GUILTY
of undue delay in the disposition of the Criminal Case No. 11-CR-
8444 and is ordered to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (Php
10,000.00) to be deducted from his disability retirement benefits
that may be due him.

ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA AND LETICIA RODRIGO-

DUMDUM, vs. JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER, EXECUTIVE JUDGE, AND
OPHELIA G. SULUEN, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/LEGAL RESEARCHER II, Branch 90,
Regional Trial Court, Dasmariñas City, Cavite.
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2460
Judge Involved JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER
Date of promulgation June 27, 2018
Ponente CARPIO, J.
Facts This is a complaint filed by Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda
and Leticia Rodrigo-Dumdum against Presiding Judge Perla
V. Cabrera-Faller and Ophelia G. Suluen, both of Branch 90,
Regional Trial Court, Dasmariñas City, Cavite, for Gross
Ignorance of the Law, Gross Inefficiency, Delay in the
Administration of Justice, and Impropriety. This, too, stems
from Civil Case No. 398810, which was initially pending
before Judge Fernando L. Felicen, Branch 20, RTC, Imus,
Cavite.

On 16 January 2013, Judge Felicen inhibited himself from the

case and the case was raffled to Judge Cabrera-Faller of
Branch 90, RTC, Dasmariñas City, Cavite.
After receipt of the records of the case, Judge Cabrera-Faller
set a clarificatory hearing on 19 March 2013. Although, it
was rescheduled, and pre-trial was set on 14 and 29 August
2013. The case, however, had already been referred for
mediation, prompting the trial court to suspend the
proceedings until receipt of the Mediator's Report. The
 Mediator's Report was received on 18 September 2013.
As for the civil case, there was a two-year delay in the
resolving the motion to expunge, which was filed on 3
September 2013, of the complainants in reponse to the
plaintiffs’ pre-trial brief, which they filed on 27 Augustus
2013.

After almost two years, Judge Cabrera-Faller denied the

motion and set the case for pre-trial conference on 8 October
2015. This, however, was rescheduled to 18 November 2015,
because Judge Cabrera-Faller was hospitalized on 8 October
2015.

The delay attendant in resolving the motion prompted Atty.

Tacorda and Rodrigo-Dumdum to file this complaint against
Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen, the Officer-in-Charge
/Legal Researcher II, for the latter's failure to call the
attention of Judge Cabrera-Faller on the delay.
OCA’s Report Finding Judge Cabrera-Faller guilty of gross inefficiency and
delay in the administration of justice, the OCA recommended
the imposition of a fine in the amount of Twenty Thousand
Pesos (P20,000.00) payable within thirty (30) days from the
receipt of notice with a warning that a commission of the
same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severity, and
the dismissal of the charges against Suluen for lack of merit.
Finding of the Court The Court finds merit in the complaint for gross inefficiency
and delay in the administration of justice against Judge
Cabrera-Faller when she failed to promptly act on the motion
filed by the Spouses Dumdum. On the other hand, as against
Suluen, the charges must be dismissed. As correctly pointed
out by the OCA, the responsibility of acting and resolving a
pending matter or incident before a court rests primarily on
the judge, and Suluen, who was merely an OIC/Legal
Researcher, could not be held responsible for the delay
incurred by the respondent judge. Based on the facts on
record, only Judge Cabrera-Faller may be held liable for the
delay in the disposition of cases.

Delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of

justice, which brings the court into disrepute, and ultimately
erodes public faith and confidence in the Judiciary. Judges
are therefore called upon to exercise the utmost diligence and
dedication in the performance of their duties. More
particularly, trial judges are expected to act with dispatch and
dispose of the court's business promptly and to decide cases
within the required periods. The main objective of every
judge, particularly trial judges, should be to avoid delays, or
if it cannot be totally avoided, to hold them to the minimum
and to repudiate manifestly dilatory tactics.

The Constitution clearly provides that all lower courts should

decide or resolve cases or matters within three months from
the date of submission. Moreover, Section 5, Canon 6 of the
New Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the

delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with
reasonable promptness. (Emphasis supplied)

The Court has, time and again, reminded judges to decide

cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored
principle that justice delayed is justice denied. More
specifically, presiding judges must endeavor to act promptly
on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their
courts. To repeat, trial court judges, who serve as the
frontline officials of the judiciary, are expected to act at all
times with efficiency and probity.

In this case, Judge Cabrera-Faller failed to meet the

expectation of promptness and efficiency that is required of a
trial court judge. She failed to act on the Motion to Expunged
[sic] the Pre-Trial Brief for almost two years, which is a clear
delay in the administration of justice. Failure to decide cases
and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes
gross inefficiency which warrants the imposition of
administrative sanctions.

Judge Cabrera-Faller failed to offer any satisfactory reason to

explain the reason for this delay. The fact that the case was
re-raffled to her sala or that the case was referred to
mediation is hardly an excuse for her inaction for almost two
years. In fact, the Mediator's Report was received on 18
September 2013 but Judge Cabrera-Faller denied the motion
of the Spouses Dumdum only on 31 July 2015. This is clearly
an unreasonable delay for which Judge Cabrera-Faller should
be held administratively liable.
 Ruling Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller of Branch 90, Regional Trial
Court, Dasmariñas City, Cavite is GUILTY of Gross
Inefficiency and Delay in the Administration of Justice and
imposed on her is a FINE of Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00) which shall be deducted from whatever amounts
may still be due her.

The charges against Ophelia G. Suluen, Officer-in-Charge/Legal

Researcher II of Branch 90, Regional Trial Court, Dasmariñas
City, Cavite are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

CONCERNED LAWYERS OF BULACAN, Petitioners,

vs.
PRESIDING JUDGE VICTORIA VILLALON-PORNILLOS, RTC, BRANCH
10, MALOLOS CITY, BULACAN, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-09-2183
Judge Involved Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chief Justice
Justice Leonardo A. Quisumbing
Justice Antonio T. Carpio
Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago
Justice Renato C. Corona
Justice Conchita Carpio Morales
Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario
Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.
Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
Justice Diosdado M. Peralta
Justice Antonio Eduardo B. Nachura
Justice Arturo D. Brion
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin
Date of promulgation July 7, 2009
Ponente Per Curiam
Facts  This arose from a five-page Anonymous
Administrative Complaint filed by the "Concerned
Lawyers of Bulacan," against Presiding Judge
 Victoria Villalon-Pornillos of Branch 10 of the
Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Malolos City for
having violated Republic Act Nos. 3019 and 6713,
the Canons of Judicial Conduct, the Code of
Professional Responsibility, and the Rules of Court,
Rule 140, Sections 1, 8 (pars. 1-4, 6-9) and 9 (pars.
2, 4), as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.
 The complaint alleged that Judge Pornillos has a
known history of committing graft and corruption
by "fixing" cases and "selling" decisions or orders.
She received ₱5 million from Lorna Silverio,
extorted ₱6 million from Romeo Estrella, and
obtained ₱200,000 from Leonardo de Leon and
asking him to pay her electric bills while
simultaneously extorting from de Leon’s detractors.
These are all relative to the election protests
involving the mayoralty race at San Rafael, Baliuag
and Angat, respectively.
 It is further alleged that Judge Pornillos maintains
amorous relationships with her driver and
bodyguards. She also borrows money from her staff
and other court officers to cover up her corruption.
She has flamboyantly displayed her ill-gotten
wealth. This was manifested when she rented a taxi
for ₱2,000 a day for almost six months, enrolled her
four children in first-class schools, and acquired a
new Ford Lynx car.
 Further, it was alleged that Judge Pornillos only
reports to court twice a week.
OCA’s Report  Given these allegations, the Supreme Court directed
the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to
conduct a discreet investigation.
 The OCA found that allegations of corruption and
extortion were only hearsay as there were no
evidence and reliable witness that has personal
knowledge on the allegations.
 Moreover, the allegations that Judge Pornillos illicit
amorous relationships with her driver and
bodyguards are also based on rumor as no one was
able to confirm that Judge Pornillos and her alleged
lovers were seen under scandalous circumstances.
 However, it was confirmed that Judge Pornillos
obtained loans from court personnel and lawyers.
  In the guard’s logbook, it was also found that Judge
Pornillos only reported for 20 days out of 29
working days from September 1, 2005 to October
11, 2005. She also arrives late in court and departs
almost always earlier than 4:30 p.m.
 Upon the recommendation of the OCA, the Supreme
Court directed the Office of the Deputy Court
Administrator to immediately conduct a judicial
audit to ascertain whether Judge Pornillos could be
held administratively liable for habitual tardiness,
failure to report to the court during all working days
of the week, and apparent poor records
management.
Finding of the Court  Having no evidence to sustain the charges of
corruption and immorality, and Supreme Court
agrees with the OCA recommendation to dismiss
such charges.
 However, the Supreme Court considered the audit
team’s observation that Branch 10 lacks proper
monitoring of cases. Judge Pornillos failed to offer
an explanation for her failure to act on the incidents
in the cases despite the lapse of a considerable time.
She simply included the cases’ status, some of
which involve decisions or orders issued after the
conduct of the judicial audit and mostly beyond the
prescribed 90-day period without having requested
extension of time.
 Canon 6 (Competence and Diligence), Section 5
New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary mandates judges to "perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."
Hence, prompt disposition of cases is attained
through proper and efficient court management.
 Judges are also duty bound to comply with the
required working hours. This is to make sure the
maximum efficiency of the trial courts for a speedy
administration of justice.
 The Supreme Court declared that borrowing money
by superior officers from subordinates is a violation
under the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in
the Civil Service and is punishable. Judge Pornillos
should be reproached for dealing with her
 subordinates in an improper manner that invokes
appearance of indecency that should be sternly
avoided by judges.
Ruling  Judge Victoria Villalon-Pornillos is found GUILTY
of violating paragraph 7, Section 8, Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court which is also a gross misconduct
constituting violation of the Code of Judicial
Conduct.
 This has been aggravated by her undue delay in
rendering decisions or orders, and violation of
Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars.
 Therefore, she is DISMISSED from the service,
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits, except
accrued leave credits, with prejudice to re-
employment in any government agency or
instrumentality.
 The receipt of this decision is deemed to be an
automatic termination of her authority to act as
judge.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant,
vs.
HON. LIBERTY 0. CASTANEDA, Presiding Judge, ATTY. PAULINO I. SAGUYOD, Clerk of Court,
LOURDES E. COLLADO, Sheriff, MARYLINDA C, DOCTOR, EVELYN B. ANTONIO, ROSALIE P.
SARSAGAT and CHERYL B. ESTEBAN, Court Stenographers, GEORGE P. CLEMENTE, Clerk,
MARITONI FLORIAN C. CERVANTES, Court Interpreter, and RUBEN A. GIGANTE, Utility
Worker, all of the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 67, PANIQUI, TARLAC, Respondents.
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316
(Formerly A.M. No. 09-7-280-RTC)
Judge Involved HON. LIBERTY 0. CASTANEDA
Date of promulgation October 9, 2012
Ponente CHIEF JUSTICE MARIA LOURDES P.A. SERENO
Facts  Judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted from September 29,
2008 to October 8, 2008 in the Regional Trial Court of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch
67, presided by herein respondent judge, revealed that there were many cases
that were undecided notwithstanding the lapse of the 90-day reglementary period
within which they should be disposed as well as cases which were not acted
upon for a considerable length of time. There were criminal cases that were
ordered archived even before the expiration of the 6-month period in violation of
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) Circular No. 89-2004.
 It further revealed that there were various irregularities in the proceedings
particularly in violation of A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC or the Rule on Declaration of
Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages, as
well as A.M. No. 02-11-11-SC or the Rule on Legal Separation.
 A second audit was conducted. Result of which revealed the same as that of the
first audit.

OCA’s Report  Judge Castañeda failed to decide cases within the reglementary period, and that
her inaction or procrastination was inexcusable. Moreover, the OCA also
considered the irregularities and procedural lapses in the manner in which Judge
Castañeda handled cases for nullity, annulment of marriage and legal separation,
as she completely disregarded the basic provisions of A.M. Nos. 02-11-10-SC
and 02-11-11-SC.
 With this, the OCA found her guilty of gross ignorance of the law and
procedure, and held her unjustifiable zeal and readiness in granting petitions for
nullity, annulment and legal separation to be so gross, patent and deliberate that
it reeks of utter bad faith.
Finding of the Court  Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary provides that judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the
delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable
promptness."
 Both judicial audits conducted in the RTC of Paniqui, Tarlac, Branch 67
revealed that Judge Castañeda failed to decide, within the prescribed period. In
the absence of an extension of time within which to decide these cases, which
Judge Castañeda could have sought from the Court, her failure to assiduously
perform her judicial duties is simply inexcusable. An inexcusable failure to
decide a case within the prescribed 90-day period constitutes gross inefficiency
warranting a disciplinary sanction.
 For her blatant disregard of the provisions of A.M. Nos. 02-11-10-SC and 02-11-
11-SC, Judge Castañeda is thus found guilty of gross ignorance of the law and
procedure. Thus, in Pesayco v. Layague, the Court held:
No less than the Code of Judicial conduct mandates that a judge shall be
faithful to the laws and maintain professional competence. Indeed,
competence is a mark of a good judge. A judge must be acquainted with legal
norms and precepts as well as with procedural rules. When a judge displays
an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public’s confidence in
the competence of our courts. Such is gross ignorance of the law. One who
accepts the exalted position of a judge owes the public and the court the duty
to be proficient in the law. Unfamiliarity with the Rules of Court is a sign of
incompetence. Basic rules of procedure must be at the palm of a judge’s
hands. Moreover, the reprehensible haste with which she granted petitions for
 ATTY. ARTURO JUANITO T.MATURAN, Complainant,
vs.
JUDGE LIZABETH GUTIERREZ-TORRES, former Presiding Judge of Branch 60 of the
Metropolitan Trial Court in Mandaluyong City, Respondent.

A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1606-MTJ

Judge Involved JUDGE LIZABETH GUTIERREZ-TORRES

Date of promulgation September 19, 2012

Ponente BERSAMIN, J.:

Facts  A case charging Judge Gutierrez-Torres for unjustifiably

delaying the rendition of decision in a criminal case.

 Atty. Maturan filed a case against respondent for delaying the

rendition of a decision in a criminal case averred that it had
remained pending and unresolved and unresolved despite its
having been submitted for decision since June 2002.

 According to Maturan this is a violation of the code of judicial

conduct and the constitution, and constituted gross inefficiency.
A judge according to Rule 3.05 must render a decision or
judgment within the 90-day period from submission of the case.

 The OCA directed Judge Gutierrez-Torres to submit her

comment however she failed to submit it despite the many
request for extensions was given to her.

OCA’s Report  The respondent has consistently exhibited indifference to the

Court’s Resolutions requiring her to comment on the instant
complaint. Her behavior constitutes gross misconduct and
 blatant insubordination, even outright disrespect for the Court.
The order of the court ti write a comment should be taken
seriously. Her failure constitutes disrespect to the courts.

 Clearly, the respondent is not only guilty of insubordination

and gross inefficiency, but also of grave and serious
misconduct, having violated Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct and Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987
Constitution.

Finding of the Court  The court adopts the findings and uphold the recommendations
of the OCA.
 Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution requires
that all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of the
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four
months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and,
unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all
lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower
courts. Thereby, the Constitution mandates all justices and
judges to be efficient and speedy in the disposition of the cases
or matters pending in their courts.

 Reiterating the mandate, the New Code of Judicial Conduct for

the Philippine Judiciary Section 2 and Section 5, Canon 6
respectively requires judges to "devote their professional
activity to judicial duties, which include the performance of
judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the making
of decisions," and to "perform all judicial duties, including the
delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with
reasonable promptness." Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct imposes on all judges the duty to dispose of
their courts’ business promptly and to decide cases within the
required periods.

 These judicial canons directly demand efficiency from the

judges in obvious recognition of the right of the public to the
speedy disposition of their cases. In such context, the saying
justice delayed is justice denied becomes a true encapsulation
of the felt need for efficiency and promptness among judges.
 Ruling  JUDGE LIZABETH GUTIERREZ-TORRES guilty of gross
inefficiency, and imposes on her a fine of P20,000.00, to be
deducted from her accrued leave credits, if any.
 The Court orders JUDGE GUTIERREZ-TORRES to show
cause in writing within ten days from notice why she should
not be suspended from membership in the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines for her act of insubordination towards the Court.
 The Court directs the Employees Leave Division, Office of
Administrative Services-OCA to compute the balance of Judge
GutierrezTorres' earned leave credits and forward the same to
the Finance Division, Fiscal Management Office-OCA which
shall compute its monetary value.

MARCELINO A. MAGDADARO, Complainant,

vs.
JUDGE BIENVENIDO R. SANIEL, JR., Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cebu
City, Respondent.
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2331
Judge Involved Judge Bienvenido R. Saniel, jr
Date of promulgation December 10, 2012
Ponente Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
Facts  This case started from a complaint filed by Marcelino A.
Magdadaro praying that a judgment of actual, moral,
exemplary damages be awarded to him against Bathala
Marketing Industries, Inc. (BMII) as a result of the latter’s
installation of a reconditioned old radiator tank on his to
shich he accrued expenses.
 The complaint in Civil Case No. CEB-27778 was dismissed
by Judge Bienvinido R. saniel Jr., for failure of the
Magdadaro to raise a cause of action against the BMII.
 A Notice of Appeal was filed by Magdadaro before the
RTC-Branch 20 of Cebu City on February 22, 2010 which
was acted upon by said court only on December 2, 2010.
 Magdadaro filed the present administrative case against
Judge Saniel because he was Disappointed with how RTC-
Branch 20 of Cebu City was handling Civil Case No. CEB-
27778. He asserted that the unreasonable delay of one
year of Judge Saniel before reaching a decision on the Civil
Case No. CEB-27778 resulted his damage and prejudice. To
worsen the situation, Judge Saniel took almost another
year to act on his Notice of Appeal and transmit the
records of the case to the appellate court.
 OCA’s Report  In the Report of the OCA, Judge Bienvenido R. Saniel, Jr.,
be held liable for undue delay in rendering a
decision and undue delay in the proceeding. Further OCA
recommended that he be fined in the amount of twenty
thousand pesos (₱20,000.00) with a stern warning that a
more severe penalty will be imposed if similar offenses will
be committed in the future.
Finding of the Court  Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, mandates
that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be
decided or resolved within three months from the date
they are submitted for decision or resolution.

 Judges are oft-reminded of their duty to promptly act

upon cases and matters pending before their courts.
Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary dictates that "Judges shall
perform all duties, including the delivery of reserved
decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness."

 That judges must decide cases promptly and expeditiously

cannot be overemphasized, for justice delayed is justice
denied. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the
people's faith and confidence in the judiciary. If they cannot
decide cases within the period allowed by the law, they
should seek extensions from this Court to avoid
administrative liability.

 Unfortunately, respondent failed to live up to the exacting

standards of duty and responsibility that his position
requires. Complainant had already submitted his
Memorandum in Civil Case No. CEB-27778 on November
11, 2008, yet, respondent rendered a decision in the case
only on December 28, 2009.

 Indeed, respondent failed to decide Civil Case No. CEB-

27778 within the three-month period mandated by the
Constitution for lower courts to decide or resolve cases.
Records do not show that respondent made any previous
attempt to report and request for extension of time to
resolve Civil Case No. CEB-27778. Respondent, without
providing a reasonable explanation for the delay, is deemed
to have admitted the same.
 Ruling  The Supreme Court found Judge Bienvenido R. Saniel, Jr.
to be guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision and in
transmitting the records of a case; he is hereby fined in the
amount of Fifteen Thousand (₱15,000.00) Pesos.

Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49,
Tagbilaran City, Bohol)
OFFICE OF THE ADMINISTRATOR COURT
vs.
JUDGE FERNANDO G. FUENTES III Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Tagbilaran City
x----------------------x
PAULINO BUTAL, SR.
vs.
JUDGE FERNANDO G. FUENTES III Regional Trial Court, Branch 49, Tagbilaran City
# A.M. No. RTJ-13-2342
&
A.M. No. RTJ-12-2318
Judge Involved HON. FERNANDO G. FUENTES III
Date of promulgation March 6, 2013
Ponente PEREZ, J.
Facts A judicial audit was conducted at the Regional Trial Court Branch
49, Tagbilaran City, Bohol which was presided over by Judge
Fernando G. Fuentes III. According to the judicial audit report,
there were still 272 pending cases in its docket as of the audit.

The Court resolved that Judge Fuentes III shall cease and desist
from hearing cases in his court and instead devote his time
deciding the pending cases.

Judge Fuentes III explained that he had to go home from time to

time upon proper leave to visit his family in Ozamis City where he
 is a resident and that the process has affected his health and has
greatly hampered his case disposition.

Meanwhile, the OCA received a verified complaint from Paulino

Butal, Sr. charging Judge Fuentes III with delay in rendering a
decision in Civil Case No. 7028 for damages and attorney’s fees
which was included in the list of pending cases for decision.
OCA’s Report The report found Judge Fuentes: a) guilty of gross inefficiency for
his failure to decide 70 cases within the reglementary period,
which includes Civil Case No. 7028 subject of A.M. No. RTJ-12-
2318, and resolve 27 incidents submitted for resolution; b) fined in
the amount of ₱50,000.00 to be deducted from his salaries; and c)
sternly warned that the commission of a similar offense will be
dealt with more severely.
Finding of the Court The 1987 Constitution provides that trial judges are mandated to
decide and resolve cases within 90 days from submission for
decision or resolution. Corollary to this constitutional mandate,
Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary requires judges to perform all judicial duties
efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. The mandate to
promptly dispose of cases or matters also applies to motions or
interlocutory matters or incidents pending before the magistrate.
Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a
violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes gross
inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative
sanction against the defaulting magistrate.

The Court has always reminded judges that it is not unmindful of

the circumstances that may delay the disposition of the cases
assigned to them. Thus, the Court remains sympathetic to
seasonably filed requests for extension of time to decide cases.
Unfortunately, no such requests were made by Judge Fuentes III
until the judicial audit was conducted by the OCA and a directive
was issued to him by the Court.

In the instant administrative matters, the Court deems the reduction

of the fine proper considering that this is the first infraction of
Judge Fuentes III in his more than 15 years in the service. The
Court also takes into consideration the fact that Judge Fuentes III
exerted earnest effort to fully comply with the directives of the
Court as contained in the resolution. With regard to his delay in
rendering judgment in Civil Case No. 7028, the Court deems the
same included in the penalty to be imposed.
 Ruling The Court ruled to Re-Docket A.M. No. 11-8-152-RTC as a
regular administrative matter against Judge Fernando G. Fuentes
III for gross inefficiency and impose upon him a fine in the amount
of Forty Thousand Pesos (₱40,000.00) with a stern warning that a
repetition of a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Petitioner,

vs.
JUDGE ANATALIO S. NECESSARIO, Branch 2; JUDGE GIL R. ACOSTA, Branch 3;
JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, Branch 4; and JUDGE EDGEMELO C. ROSALES,
Branch 8; all of MTCC-Cebu ·City; CELESTE P. RETUYA, Clerk III, MTCC Branch 6,
Cebu City; CORAZON P. RETUYA, Court Stenographer, MTCC, Branch 6, Cebu City;
RHONA F. RODRIGUEZ, Administrative Officer I, Office of the Clerk of Court, Regional
Trial Court (RTC) Cebu City; EMMA D. VALENCIA, Court Stenographer III, RTC, Branch
18, Cebu City; MARILOU CABANEZ, Court Stenographer, MTCC, Branch 4, Cebu City;
DESIDERIO S. ARANAS, Process Server, MTCC, Branch 3, Cebu City; REBECCA
ALESNA, Court Interpreter, MTCC, Branch 1, Cebu City; and HELEN MONGGAYA,
Court Stenographer, MTCC, Branch 4, Cebu City. Respondents.
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1691
(Formerly A.M. No. 07-7-04-SC)
Judge Involved JUDGE ANATALIO S. NECESSARIO, Branch 2 MTCC-Cebu ·City
JUDGE GIL R. ACOSTA, Branch 3 MTCC-Cebu ·City
JUDGE ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, Branch 4 MTCC-Cebu ·City
JUDGE EDGEMELO C. ROSALES, Branch 8 MTCC-Cebu ·City
Date of promulgation April 2, 2013
Ponente PERLAS-BERNABE
Facts  Based on the investigation conducted by OCA, it was found
out that any person can be married within the day or the
preceding day despite the absence of the marriage license.
Judge Necessario, Acosta, Tormis, and Rosales solemnize
 anomalous marriages involving foreign nationals, receive
money in exchange of their service of solemnizing marriages,
provide open-dated marriage certificates, knowledgeable of the
selling of pro-forma affidavit of joint cohabitation for those
whose marriage is preferred under Article 34 of the Family
Code.

 Judge Anatalio Necessario averred that he relied on the

presumption of regularity in relation to documents that he
received.

 Judge Gil Acosta asserted that it is not his duty to inquire the
location of parties as actual residents.

 Judge Rosabella Tormis called the operation of the OCA as

entrapment and denies the truthfulness of their report.

 Judge Edgemelo Rosales denies the allegations of the OCA and

asserted that is the local civil registrars who verified the
documents for marriage licenses.

OCA’s Report  The OCA on August 24, reported that there are 643 marriage
certificates examined, 280 marriages were solemnized under
Article 34 of the Family Code.

 The logbooks of the MTCC Branches indicate a higher number

of solemnized marriages than the number of marriage
certificates in the courts’ custody.

 There is also an unusual number of marriage licenses obtained

from the local civil registrars of the towns of Barili and Liloan,
Cebu. There were even marriages solemnized at 9 a.m. with
marriage licenses obtained on the same day.

 The town of Barili, Cebu is more than sixty (60) kilometers

away from Cebu City and entails a travel time of almost two
(2) hours. Liloan, Cebu, on the other hand, is more than ten
(10) kilometers away from Cebu City.

Finding of the Court  The respondent judges violated Canons 2 and 6 of the Canons
of Judicial Ethics which exact competence, integrity and
probity in the performance of their duties. The Court
previously said that "Ignorance of the law is a mark of
incompetence, and where the law involved is elementary,
 ignorance thereof is considered as an indication of lack of
integrity." In connection with this, the administration of
justice is considered a sacred task and upon assumption to
office, a judge ceases to be an ordinary mortal. He or she
becomes the visible representation of the law and more
importantly of justice.
 The actuations of these judges are not only condemnable, it is
outright shameful.

Ruling  WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondents:

1. Judge Anatalio S. Necessario, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court

in Cities, Branch 2, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross inefficiency or neglect
of duty and of gross ignorance of the law and that he be DISMISSED
FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except
leave credits, if any, and that he be disqualified from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -
controlled corporation;

2. Judge Gil R. Acosta, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,

Branch 3, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross inefficiency or neglect of duty
and of gross ignorance of the law and that he be DISMISSED FROM
THE SERVICE with forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except leave
credits, if any, and that he be disqualified from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -
controlled corporation;

3. Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court

in Cities, Branch 4, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross inefficiency or neglect
of duty and of gross ignorance of the law and that she would have
been DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of her retirement
benefits, except leave credits, if any, and disqualified from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including
government-owned or -controlled corporation, had she not been
previously dismissed from service in A.M. No. MTJ-12-1817 (Formerly
A.M. No. 09-2-30-MTCC);

4. Judge Edgemelo C. Rosales, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court

in Cities, Branch 8, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross inefficiency or neglect
of duty and of gross ignorance of the law and that he be DISMISSED
FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of his retirement benefits, except
leave credits, if any, and that he be disqualified from reinstatement or
appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -
controlled corporation;

5. Helen Mongaya, Court Interpreter, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,

Branch 4, Cebu City, GUILTY of violating Section 2, Canon I of the
Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and that she be DISMISSED
FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of her retirement benefits, except
leave credits, if any, and that she be disqualified from reinstatement
or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or -
controlled corporation;

6. Rhona F. Rodriguez, Administrative Officer I, Office of the Clerk of

Court, Regional Trial Court, Cebu City, GUILTY of gross misconduct for
Section 2, Canon I of the Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and for
inducing Maricel Albater to falsify the application for marriage and
that she be DISMISSED FROM THE SERVICE with forfeiture of her
retirement benefits, except leave credits, if any, and that she be
disqualified from reinstatement or appointment to any public office,
including government-owned or -controlled corporation;

7. Desiderio S. Aranas, Process Server, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,

Branch 3, Cebu City, GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service and that he be SUSPENDED without pay for a period of
six (6) months with a warning that a similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely;

8. Rebecca Alesna, Court Interpreter, Municipal Trial Court in Cities,

Branch 1, Cebu City, GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best interest
of the service and of violating Section 2(b), Canon III of the Code of
Conduct for Court Personnel and that she be SUSPENDED without pay
for a period of six (6) months with a warning that a similar offense
shall be dealt with more severely;

9. Celeste Retuya, Clerk III, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 6,

Cebu City, and Emma Valencia, Stenographer III, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 18, Cebu City, GUILTY of conduct prejudicial to the best
interest of the service and of violating Section 2(b), Canon III of the
Code of Conduct for Court Personnel and that they be ADMONISHED
with a warning that a similar offense shall be dealt with more
severely;

The complaints against Judge Geraldine Faith A. Econg, Presiding

Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Cebu City; Corazon P. Retuya,
Court Stenographer, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 6, Cebu
 City; and Marilou Cabañez, Court Stenographer, Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, are DISMISSED for lack of merit.

The case against Judge Rosabella M. Tormis, including the sworn

statements of Celerina Plaza and Crisanto dela Cerna, should be
REFERRED to the Office of the Bar Confidant for the purpose of
initiating disbarment proceedings against the judge.

The Honorable Mayors of Barili, Cebu and Liloan, Cebu, are to be

furnished copies of the Supplemental Report dated 14 August 2007
and are ADVISED to conduct an investigation with respect to the
statements of Filomena C. Lopez, Civil Registrar of Barili, Cebu, and
Bonita I. Pilones, Civil Registrar of Liloan, Cebu, regarding the
processing of marriage licenses and to take the necessary action as
the findings of the investigation may warrant.

Let a copy of this Decision be included in the respondents’ files that

are with the Office of the Bar Confidant and distributed to all courts
and to the Integrated Bar of the Philippines.

GERLIE M. UY and MA. CONSOLACION T. BASCUG, Complainants,

vs.
JUDGE ERWIN B. JAVELLANA, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, LA
CASTELLANA, NEGROS OCCIDENTAL, Respondent.
A.M. No. MTJ-07-1666
Judge Involved Chief Justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno
Justice Lucas P. Bersamin
Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr.
Justice Bienvenido l. Reyes
Date of promulgation September 5, 2012
Ponente Justice Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro
Facts  This administrative case arose from a verified
complaint for gross ignorance of the law and
procedures, gross incompetence, neglect of duty,
conduct improper and unbecoming of a judge, grave
misconduct and others filed by Public Attorneys
Gerlie M. Uy and Ma. Consolacion T. Bascug of the
Public Attorney’s Office, La Carlotta District,
against Presiding Judge Erwin B. Javellana of the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC), La Castellana,
Negros Occidental.
 In their complaint, Attorneys Uy and Bascug alleged
that Judge Javellana was grossly ignorant of the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure evident in his
action on the number of cases. Moreover, Judge
Javellana gave the impression that he was a co-agent
in a surety company with Leilani "Lani" Manunag
and that he was able to convey to the public on
several occasions that Manunag was in a special
position to influence him in granting provisional
liberty to the accused.
 They further contend that Judge Javellana violated
Section 6(b), Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of
Criminal Procedure when he issued warrants of
arrest without complying first with the process of
searching questions to determine the necessity of
placing the accused under immediate custody. He
also failed to observe the constitutional rights of the
accused when he set a case for preliminary
investigation even when the accused had no counsel.
In addition, he proceeded with said investigation
without informing the accused of his rights to
remain silent and to have a counsel.
 Further complaints have been alleged such as Judge
Javellana was habitually tardy; he inconsistently
implemented laws and rules depending on
circumstances and special relationships with the
parties or their lawyers; and he did not observe the
proper procedure in airing his complaints against
public attorneys.
 In his Comment, Judge Javellana discarded the
allegations against him as these are only baseless
and malicious intended to harass and intimidate him.
He further contented that he was not grossly
 ignorant of the rules of procedure and explained his
actions in particular cases. He denied acting as the
co-agent of Manunag, claimed that he conducted
preliminary examination before issuing warrants of
arrest and that he did not violate the rights of the
accused.
 Judge Javellana disclaimed the allegation that he
applied the law and ruled in inconsistent manner. He
claims that that he "applied the law and the rules
according to what he believes is fair, just and
equitable in the exercise of his judicial discretion.”.
OCA’s Report  The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found
that Judge Javellana is liable for gross ignorance of
the law or procedure when he did not apply the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure in cases
appropriately covered by said Rule. He is also liable
for gross misconduct when he got involved in
business relations with Manunag and implemented
the law inconsistently.
Finding of the Court  Canon 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary states that “Ensuring
equality of treatment to all before the courts is
essential to the due performance of the judicial
office”. In addition, they should not manifest bias or
prejudice towards any person or group on irrelevant
grounds, and that they should carry out judicial
duties with appropriate consideration for all persons
without differentiation on any irrelevant ground,
immaterial to the proper performance of such duties.
 Judge Javellana did not admit having a business
relationship with Manunag. However the findings of
OCA show the contrary. By referring the accused
who appears before his court directly to Manunag
for processing of the bail bond, he is giving the
impression that he is favoring Manunag and her
bonding company.
 Judge Javellana was also inconsistent in granting or
denying motions for extension of time to file
pleadings which were signed only by the accused on
the ground that the PAO lawyers who prepared the
motions should have signed the same as counsels for
the accused. However, he was not able to explain
the fact that he granted similar motions signed only
 by the accused. Without any satisfactory basis for
the difference in his ruling on these motions, Judge
Javellana acted arbitrarily to the prejudice of the
PAO lawyers.
Ruling  Judge Erwin B. Javellana is found guilty of gross
ignorance of the law and gross misconduct and
hereby suspended from office without salary and
other benefits for a period of three (3) months and
one (1) day with a stern warning that the repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.

RE: LETTER OF PRESIDING JUSTICE CONRADO M. VASQUEZ, JR. ON

CA-G.R. SP NO. 103692 [Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, et al.]
A.M. No. 08-8-11-CA
Judge Involved Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr.,
Justice Vicente Q. Roxas
Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.
Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes
 Date of September 9, 2008
promulgation
Ponente Per Curiam
Facts A case on the appropriate action of the publicized dispute and
charges of impropriety among judges of Court of Appeals.
In the case of Meralco-GSIS &SEC of petition for certiorari and
prohibition with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction and TRO.
Justice Reyes the Chairperson of the Ninth Division of the CA was
on leaved which in turned gave temporary position to Justice
Mendoza as the Acting Chairman. The Meralco-GSIS& SEC case
was raffled to the said Division which Justice Mendoza inhibits
because of conflict of interest as the previous lawyer of Meralco.
Furthermore, Justice Roxas was then appointed as the acting
chairman of the same division but received a request for re-raffle by
GSIS in ruling the case.
The CA then granted the preliminary injunction and TRO in favor
of Meralco.
De Borja attempted to bribe Justice Sabio for 10 million to give way
with the chairmanship of Justice Reyes which he refused to accept.
Justice Sabio then had talks with Justice Bruselas and Justice Vidal
which made the latter to report the incident to Justice Vasquez .
Justice Vidal allegedly leaked a copy of his letter asserting strong
reaction against the decision of Justice Roxas on the case of
Meralco-GSIS.
Panel of The court created the panel to investigate the alleged improprieties
Investigators of the actions of the Justices of CA and in the alleged bribe attempt
or solicitation of bribe by one of the justices.
According to the Report, "the investigation has revealed
irregularities and improprieties committed by the Court of Appeals
Justices in connection with the MERALCO case, CA-G.R. SP No.
103692, which are detrimental to the proper administration of
justice and damaging to the institutional integrity, independence and
public respect for the Judiciary."
Findings of the Justice Roxas inexcusably failed to act on a number of motions of
Court the parties prior to the promulgation of the Decision.

Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct mandates

that "[j]udges shall perform all judicial duties, including the
delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with
reasonable promptness." Thus, it has become well-settled in
jurisprudence that even just undue delay in the resolving pending
motions or incidents within the reglamentary period fixed by law is
not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. With more reason,
this Court finds suspicious and reprehensible the failure of Justice
Roxas to act at all on pending motions and incidents in CA-G.R. SP
No. 103692.

This is in fact not the first time that Justice Roxas has been cited
administratively for failure to resolve pending incidents in cases
assigned to him. In Orocio v. Roxas, A.M. Nos. 07-115-CA-J and
CA-08-46-J, this Court imposed a P15,000 fine on Justice Roxas for
unwarranted delay in resolving two motions for reconsideration in
another case and sternly warned him that future commission any act
of impropriety will be dealt with more severely.

Moreover, Judge Roxas was dishonest and untruthful. There is an

old adage which says to gain respect one must learn to give it. If
judges and justices are expected to treat litigants, counsels and
subordinates with respect and fairness, with more reason, that
judges and justices should give their fellow magistrates the courtesy
and professional regard due to them as their colleagues in the
Judiciary. Thus, in Canon 5, Section 3 of the New Code of Judicial
Conduct, judges are expected to "carry out judicial duties with
appropriate consideration for all persons, such as the parties,
witnesses, lawyers, court staff and judicial colleagues, without
differentiation on any irrelevant ground, immaterial to the proper
performance of such duties."

This Court cannot view lightly the discourteous manner that Justice
Roxas, in his apparent haste to promulgate his decision in the
Meralco case, treated his colleagues in the Court of Appeals. It
behooves the Court to remind all magistrates that their high office
demands compliance with the most exacting standards of propriety
and decorum.

Justice Roxas’ questionable handling of the Meralco case

demonstrates his undue interest therein.

The court adopts the finding of the Panel on this point and find
Justice Reyes guilty of simple misconduct, which is mitigated by
the fact that he repeatedly asked Presiding Justice Vasquez to act on
his request to rule on the conflicting interpretation of the IRCA.
However, Justice Reyes should be reprimanded for taking part in
the decision of the subject case without awaiting the ruling of the
 Presiding Justice

It bears repeating here that under Canon 5, Section 3 of the New

Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are mandated to show the
appropriate consideration and respect for their colleagues in the
Judiciary.

Justice Sabio likewise committed improprieties in relation to the

Meralco case violated Canon 13 of the CPR. The circumstances of
the telephone call of Chairman Sabio to his brother Justice Sabio
showed that Justice Sabio failed to uphold the standard of
independence and propriety expected of him as a magistrate of the
appellate court.

Presiding Justice Vasquez failed to provide the leadership expected

of him as head of the Court of Appeals. The following quote from
the Report summarizes the perceived lapses on the part of the
Presiding Justice:

Clearly, Presiding Justice Vasquez, Jr. had been indecisive

in dealing with the turmoil arising from the Meralco case.
He vacillated and temporized on resolving the impasse
between Justice Sabio, Jr. and Justice B. L. Reyes over the
chairmanship of the Division that should hear and decide the
Meralco case. He failed to take action on the reported bribe-
offer by Meralco to J. Sabio, Jr. He hesitated to assert his
leadership of the Court even when the parties repeatedly
urged him to lay down the rule for them to follow. Was he
hampered by the fact that he has relatives - two daughters -
employed in the GSIS, and a sister who is a consultant
thereof? He pleaded lack of authority. Was he not aware
then, or did he discover too late, that under Section 11, Rule
VIII of the IRCA, he is in fact authorized to act "on any
matter" involving the Court and its members? That Rule
provides: Sec. 11. x xx the Presiding Justice or any one
acting in his place is authorized to act on any matter not
covered by these Rules. Such action shall, however, be
reported to the Court en banc.

Ruling (1) Associate Justice Vicente Q. Roxas is found guilty of multiple

violations of the canons of the Code of Judicial Conduct, grave
misconduct, dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to
the best interest of the service, and is DISMISSED from the service,
with FORFEITURE of all benefits, except accrued leave credits if
any, with prejudice to his re-employment in any branch or service
of the government including government-owned and controlled
corporations;

(2) Associate Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr. is found guilty of simple

misconduct and conduct unbecoming of a justice of the Court of
Appeals and is SUSPENDED for two (2) months without pay, with
a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
warrant a more severe penalty;

(3) Presiding Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. is SEVERELY

REPRIMANDED for his failure to act promptly and decisively in
order to avert the incidents that damaged the image of the Court of
Appeals, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
similar acts will warrant a more severe penalty;

(4) Associate Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes is found guilty of simple

misconduct with mitigating circumstance and is REPRIMANDED,
with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will
warrant a more severe penalty;

(5) Associate Justice Myrna Dimaranan-Vidal is found guilty of

conduct unbecoming a Justice of the Court of Appeals and is
ADMONISHED to be more circumspect in the discharge of her
judicial duties.

(6) PCGG Chairman Camilo L. Sabio’s act to influence the

judgment of a member of the Judiciary in a pending case is hereby
referred to the Bar Confidant for appropriate action;

(7) Justice Jose L. Sabio, Jr.’s charge against Mr. Francis R. De

Borja for attempted bribery of a member of the Judiciary is hereby
referred to the Department of Justice for appropriate action.