SECOND DIVISION
ROMERO
TEODOSIO,
ROLANDO RICO,AMADO
BAUTISTA AND
JESSIE BAUTISTA,
Complainants,
A.
M.
No. MTJ-02-1416
February 27, 2004
-versus-
HON.
JUDGE ARTURO
R. CARPIO,FIRST MUNICIPAL
CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC),NEW WASHINGTON,
AKLAN,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
The instant administrative
case is one for dereliction of duty filed against Judge Arturo R.
Carpio,
First Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), New Washington, Aklan,
relative
to Election Cases Nos. 2-1997,[1]
3-1997,[2]
4-1997[3]
and 5-1997.[4]
The allegations are contained in a verified Affidavit-Complaint[5]
dated October 16, 2000 filed by Romero Teodosio, Rolando Rico, Amado
Bautista
and Jessie Bautista.
According to the complainants,
they are the respective protestants in the foregoing election cases,
and
that the same were filed after the 1997 Barangay Elections. The
respondent
judge issued an Order[6]
dated November 22, 1999, declaring the case submitted for resolution
upon
the parties’ submission of their respective memoranda. On May 10, 2000,
the complainants’ counsel filed an Ex-Parte Omnibus Motion,[7]
informing the court that except in Election Case No. 4-1997, all the
protestants
had filed their respective memoranda. On August 18, 2000, the
complainants,
by themselves, filed an Omnibus Motion[8]
praying that their election protest be decided. The complainants thus
alleged
that despite the fact that the case before the respondent judge was an
election case, and considering the length of time that had already
elapsed,
the latter is guilty of dereliction of duty in not rendering any
decision
on the said election protests.cralaw:red
In his Comment, the
respondent averred that the election cases had already been decided,
thus:
Election
Case
No. 2-1997 – May 2, 2001[9]
Election Case No.
3-1997
– May 4, 2001[10]
Election Case No.
4-1997
– May 4, 2001[11]
Election Case No.
5-1997
– May 4, 2001[12]
According to the
respondent:chanrobles virtual law library
That the Decision in
the above-entitled cases had been made only on May 2 and May 4, 2001,
respectively,
due to careful examination of voluminous records as well as the
contested
ballots in the above-entitled cases and also due to the time given by
the
undersigned for cases in the 6th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
Altavas
and Balete, Aklan, where the herein Presiding Judge is acting Presiding
Judge since December 12, 1997 up to the present per Designation by the
Honorable Sheila Martelino-Cortes, Executive Judge, Regional Trial
Court,
Kalibo, Aklan, copy of which designation is hereto attached as Annex
“8”,
as well as in cases in the Municipal Court of Kalibo, Kalibo, Aklan and
in the MCTC of Banga-Libacao and Madalag, Banga, Aklan in designated
cases
due to inhibition of the Presiding Judge in said Courts.[13]chanrobles virtual law library
In its Evaluation and
Recommendation[14]
dated February 12, 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator found
that
the respondent judge was guilty of failing to decide the election cases
within the ninety-day reglementary period, and recommended that a) the
instant administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular
administrative
matter; b) the respondent judge be fined in the amount of P3,000.00;
and
c) the respondent be sternly warned that a repetition of the same
offense
in the future will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
The case was, thereafter,
referred to Executive Judge Marietta J. Homena-Valencia of the Regional
Trial Court of Aklan.[15]
On October 21, 2003, the complainants Teodosio, Rico and Bautista
manifested
that they were no longer interested in pursuing the case and were
withdrawing
the complaint against the respondent, as three years had already
elapsed
since the filing of the complaint and that harmonious relations between
the parties had long been restored. On October 24, 2003, Atty. Porferio
Taplac, counsel for the complainants, filed a Manifestation on behalf
of
complainant Jessie Bautista to the effect that the latter was,
likewise,
joining his co-complainants in withdrawing the complaint.chanrobles virtual law library
In her Report dated
December 12, 2003, the Executive Judge recommended that the complaint
against
the respondent be dismissed, with a warning that future similar
inaction
would be dealt with appropriately. She anchored her recommendation on
the
following findings:
A reading of each Decision
indeed shows that Judge Carpio had to examine one hundred twenty-one
(121)
protested and counter-protested ballots for Election Case No. 2-1997;
forty-one
(41) contested and counter-contested ballots in Election Case No.
3-1997;
one hundred nineteen (119) such ballots for Election Case No. 4-1997
and
one hundred nine (109) such ballots in Election Case No. 5-1997. Judge
Carpio incorporated his rulings on all these exhibits into his findings
resulting to a nineteen (19)-page decision in Case No. 2-1997, a
thirty-five
(35)-page decision in Case No. 3-1997, a twenty-eight (28)-page
decision
in Case No. 4-1997 and a thirty-seven (37)-page decision in Case No.
5-1997,
all typed in single space. The findings of the judge in each
protested
and counter-protested ballots were painstakingly written in his
decisions;chanrobles virtual law library
(12) Deciding an election
protest case is not as easy as deciding a civil case for forcible entry
or ejectment. The decision-making process involved in an election
protest
is more complicated and requires of the trial judge more time to ponder
on the validity of the entries in the ballot of or of the ballot itself;
(13) First [level] (and
also second level) judges in this jurisdiction hear cases daily. They
are
also mandated by the Constitution
to decide a case within three (3) months after it is submitted for
decision.
The pressure on the judge to hear and then decide in a period of three
(3) months is thus tremendous.[16]
At the outset, the Court
would like to make it clear that the dismissal or withdrawal of charges
and the desistance of witnesses does not automatically result in the
dismissal
of an administrative case. This Court, in fact, looks with
disfavor
at affidavits of desistance filed by complainants, especially if done
as
an afterthought. The withdrawal of the complaint does not have
the
legal effect of exonerating the respondent from any administrative
disciplinary
action. It does not operate to divest this Court with
jurisdiction
to determine the truth behind the matter stated in the complaint.
The Court’s disciplinary authority cannot be dependent on or frustrated
by private arrangements between parties; otherwise, the prompt and fair
administration of justice, as well as the discipline of court
personnel,
would be undermined.[17]
Judges should dispose
of court business promptly within the period prescribed by law or the
extended
time granted them by this Court.[18]
This is mandated by Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct, and by no less than the Constitution
itself.[19]
Canon 6 reminds a judge to be prompt in disposing of all matters
submitted
to him or her, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied.[20]
Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of
the
public in the institution of justice, lowers its standards and brings
them
into disrepute. Every judge must cultivate a capacity for quick
decision;
he must not delay the judgment which a party justly deserves. The
public
trust reposed in a judge’s office imposes upon him the highest degree
of
responsibility to promptly administer justice.[21]
The Court, however,
is not unaware of the heavy caseload of judges and the rigors of travel
that they sometimes have to make because of detail to vacant salas. It
is precisely for this reason that the Court has been sympathetic to
requests
for extensions of time within which to decide cases and resolve matters
and incidents related thereto.[22]
Indeed, the Court allows a certain degree of latitude to judges and
grants
them a reasonable extension of time to decide and resolve cases upon
proper
application by the judge concerned and on meritorious grounds.[23]
All the respondent had to do was ask the Court for an extension of time
to decide the cases. This, he failed to do.chanrobles virtual law library
Under Section 9, Rule
140 of the Rules
of
Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is classified
as
a less serious charge, punishable by either suspension from office
without
salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three
(3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding
P20,000.00.[24]
However, considering the respondent’s candid admission and the fact
that
his designation as presiding judge in other salas contributed to the
delay
in deciding the election cases, he is hereby REPRIMANDED.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, Respondent
Judge ARTURO R. CARPIO of the First Municipal Circuit Trial Court of
New
Washington, Aklan, is hereby REPRIMANDED. He is STERNLY WARNED
that
a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more
severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Quisumbing, J., (Acting
Chairman), Austria-Martinez, and Tinga, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., (Chairman),
on leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Romero Teodosio v. Filipina Bautista.
[2]
Rolando Rico v. Teody Masangya.
[3]
Jessie Bautista v. Salvador Pitoy.
[4]
Amado Bautista v. Raul Esmeralda.
[5]
Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[6]
Annex “A,” Rollo, pp. 4-5.
[7]
Annex “B,” Id. at 6-7.
[8]
Annex “C,” Id. at 8-9.
[9]
Annex “1,” Id. at 14-32.
[10]
Annex “2,” Id. at 33-67.
[11]
Annex “3,” Id. at 68-95.
[12]
Annex “4,” Id. at 96-132.
[13]
Rollo, p. 12.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Id. at 139-140.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Resolution dated June 9, 2003, Rollo, p. 143.
[16]
Report, pp. 2-3.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Guray v. Bautista, 360 SCRA 489 (2001).chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Rodolfo Macachor v. Judge Rolindo D. Beldia, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-02-1724,
June 12, 2003.
[19]See
Re: Judicial Audit Report Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch
17, Kidapawan City, A.M. No. 02-8-471, March 14, 2003, citing Office of
the Court Administrator v. Quizon, 376 SCRA 579 (2002).chanrobles virtual law library
[20]
Re: Request of Judge Sylvia G. Jurao for Extension of Time to Decide
Criminal
Case No. 5812 and 27 and Others Pending before the RTC-Branches 10 and
12, San Jose, Antique, A.M. No. 00-11-566-RTC, July 31, 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Edgardo D. Balsamo v. Judge Pedro L. Suan, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1656,
September
17, 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[22]
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-Branches 1, 2 &
3, Mandaue City, A.M. No. 02-8-188-MTCC, July 17, 2003.
[23]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Francisco C. Joven, A.M. No.
RTJ-01-1646, March 11, 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[24]
Section 11 (B) of Rule 140, as amended by AM No. 01-8-10-SC, September
11, 2001.chanrobles virtual law library |