ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
SURIGAO
CITIZENS' MOVEMENT FOR GOOD
GOVERNMENT
A. M. No. MTJ-96-1099 September 23, 1996 -versus-JUDGE
FLORDELIZA D. CORO, MCTC, Del
Carmen-San
Benito-
PER CURIAM: On March 22, 1995, the Surigao Citizens' Movement for Good Government [SURCIMO], through its Chairman, Eduardo S. Barotac, filed before Executive Judge Melchor Libarnes[1] a letter complaint[2] charging Judge Flordeliza D. Coro[3] with undue delay in the disposition of cases and indiscriminate archiving of cases. The letter contained a list of cases[4] which allegedly remained frozen for several years in respondent judge's sala without resolution or proper action taken by the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, but were nevertheless archived by respondent judge. On May 12, 1995, Judge Libarnes directed respondent judge to comment on the complaint within ten [10] days. Respondent judge however, failed to file her comment within the said period. On June 1, 1995, Judge Libarnes wrote another letter[5] to respondent judge giving her ten [10] days more to file her comment. Still, respondent judge did not comply.cralaw:red On July 24, 1995, Judge Libarnes forwarded SURCIMO's complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator.[6] In a Resolution dated October 18, 1995, We required respondent judge to file her Comment. We also ordered Judge Libarnes to conduct an audit and inventory of the cases pending at respondent judge's sala.[7] On January 29, 1995, Judge Libarnes submitted his Report[8] together with the Comment[9] of respondent judge. He also submitted a tabulated Report[10] on the status as of March 31, 1995 of the cases cited in the complaint, and a tabulated Report[11] on the status as of January 1996 of all criminal and civil cases pending in respondent judge's sala. Judge Libarnes stated in his report that the criminal cases specified in the complaint have been given preference and were expeditiously resolved by respondent judge.cralaw:red Respondent judge, in her Comment,[12] denied the complainant's charges. She averred that she acted upon all the cases in her sala, except those where the accused are at large. In most of the cases cited by the complainant, the accused have not been arrested. She placed these cases in the archives in order to clean the court's docket. Respondent judge, however, admitted that when Judge Libarnes conducted an inventory, he instructed her to transmit to the Provincial Prosecutor the case which were not within her jurisdiction.cralaw:red We are not convinced.cralaw:red The records show that as of March 31, 1995, there were at least thirty-five [35] archived cases in respondent judge's sala.[13] Nineteen [19] of these do not fall within the jurisdiction of the MCTC.[14] Yet, respondent judge, instead of forwarding them to the Provincial Prosecutor, placed them in the archives on the ground that the accused have not been arrested. This violates Sections 3 and 5 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court which provides:
[b] Within ten (10) days after the filing of the complaint, the investigating officer shall either dismiss the same if he finds no ground to continue with the inquiry or issue a subpoena to the respondent, attaching thereto a copy of the complaint, affidavits and other supporting documents. Within ten (10) days from receipt thereof, the respondent shall submit counter-affidavit and other supporting documents. He shall have the right to examine all other evidence submitted by the complainant. [c] xxx xxx xxx [d] If the respondent cannot be subpoenaed, or if subpoenaed, does not submit counter-affidavits within that then (10) day period, the investigating officer shall base his resolution on the evidence presented by the complainant. [e] If the investigating officer believes that there are matters to be clarified, he may set a hearing to propound clarificatory questions to the parties their witnesses, during which the parties shall be afforded an opportunity to be present but without the right to examine or cross-examine. If the parties so desire, they may submit questions to the investigating officer which the latter may propound to the parties or witnesses concerned. [f] Thereafter, the investigation
shall be
deemed
concluded, and the investigating officer shall resolve the case within
ten (10) days therefrom. Upon the evidence thus adduced, the
investigating
officer shall determine whether or not there is sufficient ground to
hold
the respondent for trial.
Furthermore, respondent judge has been remiss in her duty as presiding judge to conduct a periodic review of the archived cases in her sala.[17] It appears that all the archived cases in respondent judge's sala have remained untouched for several years. Respondent judge reviewed these cases only after SURCIMO filed a complaint with the Executive Judge charging her with undue delay in the disposition of cases. Were it not for the pressure exerted by the complainant, respondent judge would not have attended to said cases.cralaw:red We, therefore, find respondent judge guilty of gross inefficiency and gross negligence for failure to act promptly on the cases pending in her sala and for unduly archiving cases which are not within her jurisdiction.cralaw:red We also note that this is respondent judge's second offense. She was previously found guilty of releasing prisoners without bail and was fined P5,000.00.[18] IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent Judge Flordeliza D. Coro is dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all leave credits and retirement benefits and with disqualification for re-employment in the national and local governments as well as in any government instrumentality or agency, including government-owned or controlled corporations.cralaw:red This decision is immediately executory and the respondent judge is further ordered to cease and desist from discharging the functions of her office upon receipt of this decision. Let a copy be entered in the personal records of the respondent.cralaw:red SO ORDERED. Narvasa, C.J.
Padilla, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Francisco,
Hermosisima,
Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
_________________________________
[1]
Regional Trial Court, Dapa, Surigao del Norte
|
|