FIRST DIVISION
RENE BOY GOMEZ,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1493
June 18, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE MANUEL D.
PATALINGHUG, ALBERTO C. PITA,
ACTING CLERK OF
COURT/LEGAL RESEARCHER,
AND A CONCERNED
RECORDS CUSTODIAN, MTCC, DANAO CITY,
Respondents.
R E S O L U
T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Complainant is the accused
in Criminal Case No. 5794 for Grave Threats, pending before the
Municipal
Circuit Trial Court of Danao City. From April 19, 1995 to
November
8, 1996, the prosecution presented its witnesses before the Presiding
Judge,
the late Eleuteria N. Alfeche, and later before Acting Presiding Judge
Salvador B. Mendoza. After the prosecution rested, the defense
moved
for the deferment of the hearings since the accused’s counter-affidavit
and the affidavits of the witnesses were missing from the records of
the
trial court. Meanwhile, respondent Judge Manuel D. Patalinghug
was
assigned to the MCTC of Danao City. On March 17, 1998, the
defense
presented the copy of the accused’s counter-affidavit in the files of
the
Assistant City Prosecutor. Since the affidavits of the other
defense
witnesses were still missing, counsel for the accused, Atty. Ana Marie
Angelica P. Batiquin, was constrained to rest the case.
On January 3, 2000,
a decision in Criminal Case No. 5794 was rendered and promulgated,
convicting
the accused Rene Gomez and sentencing him to suffer the penalty of one
month and one day to two months imprisonment and to pay a fine of
P200.00.[1]
Atty. Batiquin was not notified of the promulgation. When she
obtained
a copy of the decision, she noticed the portion therein that read: "the
Court was able to observe the demeanor of the private complainant when
she was cross-examined in open court."[2]
She went to see respondent judge to point out the error and reminded
him
that he was not the presiding judge at the time of presentation of the
prosecution witnesses. During her conversation with respondent
judge,
it appeared that the decision was actually prepared by the Acting Clerk
of Court, respondent Alberto C. Pita. Atty. Batiquin promptly
expressed
her dismay that the decision was not prepared by the presiding judge.chanrobles virtual law library
Immediately thereafter,
respondent judge promulgated a second decision wherein he rectified the
above error, but nonetheless convicted the accused and imposed on him
the
same penalty.[3]
In the second decision, respondent judge noted that only the
counter-affidavit
of the accused was submitted in evidence.[4]
Again, Atty. Batiquin went to the court to examine the records of the
case.
There she found that the counter-affidavit of the accused, which was
previously
missing, was attached to the records right after the affidavits of the
prosecution witnesses. Moreover, the first decision was no longer
attached to the record; only the second decision was attached thereto.cralaw:red
Hence, the accused filed
with this Court an administrative complaint charging respondents Judge
Manuel D. Patalinghug, Acting Clerk of Court Alberto C. Pita, and an
unnamed
records custodian, all of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Danao
City,
with Conduct Prejudicial to the Best Interest of the Service, Grave
Abuse
of Authority, Serious Misconduct, Gross Dishonesty and Partiality, and
Misrepresentation and Concealment of Records.[5]
Respondents Judge Patalinghug
and Pita filed a joint Comment. They deny complainant’s claim
that
he submitted his counter-affidavit and the affidavits of his witnesses
to the court; otherwise, he should have presented his service copy with
the stamp: "Received" by the trial court. Moreover, respondents
claim
that no part of the records of Criminal Case No. 5794 was lost; that
complainant’s
counter-affidavit was attached to the records right after the evidence
for the prosecution. Neither was the first decision missing,
since
complainant was able to secure a copy thereof from the court.
Furthermore,
although there were two decisions promulgated, there was in legal
contemplation
only one decision rendered by the court, inasmuch as the first
decision,
promulgated on January 3, 2000, was effectively recalled eight days
later
in an Order dated January 11, 2000, or before its finality.[6]
In compliance with this
Court’s Resolution,[7]
complainant and respondents manifested their willingness to have the
case
submitted for decision on the basis of the pleadings filed.[8]
Thereafter, the case was referred to the Office of the Court
Administrator
for evaluation, report and recommendation. On July 27, 2001, the
OCA submitted its report wherein it recommended that the complaint
against
Alberto C. Pita be dismissed and that respondent Judge be fined in an
amount
equivalent to one (1) month salary with a stern warning that a
repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.[9]chanrobles virtual law library
We agree with the findings
of the Court Administrator. Indeed, it is understandable for
complainant
to suspect that the first decision was not personally prepared by
respondent
Judge. The following excerpt, to be sure, could not have been
written
by him:
The Court was able to
observe the demeanor of the private complainant when she was examined
in
open court; she was spontaneous in her giving of answers to questions
propounded
by counsel for the accused and her answers were clothed with sincerity
and in fact she was crying when she gave her testimony.[10]
The efficacy of a decision
is not necessarily impaired by the fact that its writer took over from
a colleague who had earlier presided at the trial, unless there is a
showing
of grave abuse of discretion in the factual findings reached by him.[11]
The fact that the judge who prepared, signed and promulgated the
decision
was not the one who heard the evidence does not render the judgment
void
per se.[12]
However, respondent judge should have exercised caution and carefully
scrutinized
the draft decision to make the necessary corrections before affixing
his
signature thereon. His failure to do so betrays his carelessness
and laziness, which are anathema to the professional competence and
diligence
required of judges, to wit:chanrobles virtual law library
CANON
3
- A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY,
AND
WITH IMPARTIALITY AND DILIGENCE.
Rule 3.01
-
A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain professional
competence.chanrobles virtual law library
Rule
3.02
In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts
and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion
or
fear of criticism.
No one called upon to
try
the facts or interpret the law in the administration of justice can be
infallible;[13]
and a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for
every
erroneous order or decision he renders. Nevertheless, this
relative
immunity is not a license for the judge to be negligent or abusive and
arbitrary in the performance of his adjudicatory prerogatives.[14]
The judge is under obligation to observe propriety, discreetness and
due
care in the performance of his judicial functions.[15]
In the case at bar, respondent Judge fell short of these ideals.chanrobles virtual law library
Judicial indolence is
considered gross inefficiency punishable by a fine or suspension from
service
without pay with the gravity of the penalty dependent on the attendant
aggravating or mitigating circumstances.[16]
Therefore, we adopt the Court Administrator’s recommendation that
respondent
Judge be meted the penalty of fine, but in the specific amount of
P20,000.00.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Manuel D. Patalinghug is found GUILTY of Gross Inefficiency and
is
FINED the amount of P20,000.00, with STERN WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
The complaint against Alberto C. Pita and the unnamed Records Custodian
is DISMISSED for lack of merit.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, 18-27.
[2]
Id., p. 26.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id., pp. 38-48.
[4]
Id., p. 47.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Id., pp. 5-7.
[6]
Id., pp. 59-63.
[7]
Id., p. 174.chanrobles virtual law library
[8]
Id., pp. 175 & 178.
[9]
Id., pp. 168-172.
[10]
Supra., note 2.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Quinao v. People, G.R. No. 139603, 14 July 2000, 335 SCRA 741.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
People v. Quiamco, G.R. No. 96249, 17 February 1997, 268 SCRA 516;
People
v. Espanola, G.R. No. 119308, 18 April 1997, 271 SCRA 689.
[13]
Pilipinas Bank v. Tirona-Liwag, A.M. No. CA-90-11, 18 October 1990, 190
SCRA 834.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
De Vera v. Dames III, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1455, 13 July 1999, 310 SCRA 213.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Enojas v. Gacott, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-1513, 19 January 2000.chanrobles virtual law library
[16]
Report on the Judicial audit Conducted in RTC Branches 29 and 59,
Toledo
City, A.M. No. 97-9-278-RTC, 8 July 1998, 292 SCRA 8. |