Republic of the
Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila
EN BANC
JOSE E. FERNANDEZ,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
RTJ-04-1821
August 12, 2004
-versus-
JUDGE JAIME T. HAMOY,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 130, CALOOCAN
CITY,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PER CURIAM:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an administrative
complaint against Judge Jaime T. Hamoy for Abuse of Authority,
Dereliction
of Duty and Violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.[1]
Complainant Jose E.
Fernandez is the counsel for plaintiff in Civil Case No. 3645 entitled,
“Hadji Adil Musahari, Plaintiff versus Shop-O-Rama, et al.,
Defendants,”
and Civil Case No. 2744 entitled, “Philippine International
Development,
Inc., Plaintiff versus Associate Citizens Bank, Defendant,” both of
which
were filed with the Regional Trial Court of Zamboanga City, Branch 15,
then presided by respondent Judge. Despite the lapse of more than
ten years, respondent Judge failed to render judgment in the said
cases.
After respondent Judge was transferred to the RTC of Caloocan City,
complainant
learned that he brought the records of the subject cases to his new
station.cralaw:red
On January 7, 1997,
complainant wrote a letter to the Court Administrator seeking help in
the
speedy disposition of his clients’ cases.[2]
Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez referred the
letter
to respondent Judge for comment or appropriate action.[3]
When nothing was heard
from respondent Judge, then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo
directed
respondent to comment on the complaint within ten days from
receipt.
Again, respondent Judge failed to comply.[4]chanrobles virtual law library
On April 3, 2001, Deputy
Court Administrator Jose P. Perez sent a First Tracer to respondent
Judge
reiterating the directive for him to file comment within five days from
receipt. Still, respondent Judge failed to do so.cralaw:red
For his repeated failure
to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator,
a Resolution was issued requiring respondent Judge to show cause why he
should not be held in contempt for his failure to file comment; and to
submit the said comment within ten days from notice.[5]
Respondent Judge finally
filed an Explanation/Compliance, alleging that he simply forgot to
submit
his comment; that he misplaced the records of Civil Cases Nos. 3645 and
2744; that his Utility Aide in Caloocan City mixed up the records of
the
said cases with the records of cases assigned to the Caloocan court;
that
the missing case records were found only when the old records were
transferred
to the newly-acquired storage/filing cabinets; that he was unable to
act
on the cases notwithstanding the discovery of the records because he
had
to attend to the many family-related cases, being then the only
designated
Family Court; that his docket became more congested when the other
courts
forwarded to his sala cases falling under the jurisdiction of the
Family
Court; and that he had no intention of disregarding the directives of
the
Court Administrator or of this Court.[6]
Subsequently, respondent
Judge filed a Manifestation that he had already decided Civil Case No.
2744 on July 11, 2003 and Civil Case No. 3645 on June 20, 2003.[7]
In compliance with the
directive of this Court, respondent Judge manifested his willingness to
submit the administrative complaint against him for resolution on the
basis
of the pleadings filed.[8]chanrobles virtual law library
The Office of the Court
Administrator, after evaluation, recommended that respondent Judge be
fined
the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00) for his failure to
decide
the subject cases within the reglementary period, with warning that any
further delay in the disposition of cases will subject him to a more
severe
penalty of either suspension or dismissal from service.cralaw:red
We agree with the recommendation
of the Court Administrator that respondent is administratively liable
for
gross inefficiency, dereliction of duty and violation of Canon 3, Rule
3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. However, we find the
recommended
penalty not commensurate to the gravity of the nonfeasance and
malfeasance
committed.cralaw:red
In his Comment, respondent
Judge attributes the delay in the resolution of Civil Cases Nos. 2744
and
3645 to the mix-up of the records with those of the other cases
assigned
to his court.chanrobles virtual law library
Such an excuse hardly
merits serious consideration. Respondent Judge cannot be absolved from
liability for the inefficiency of his court personnel.[9]
Judges are charged with the administrative responsibility of organizing
and supervising his court personnel to secure the prompt and efficient
dispatch of business, requiring at all times the observance of high
standards
of public service and fidelity.[10]
Indeed, he is ultimately responsible for ensuring that court personnel
perform their tasks and that the parties are promptly notified of his
orders
and decisions.[11]
It is his duty to devise an efficient recording and filing system in
his
court to enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their
speedy
and timely disposition.[12]
More importantly, judges
have a duty to decide their cases within the reglementary period. On
meritorious
grounds, they may ask for additional time. It must be stressed,
however,
that their application for extension must be filed before the
expiration
of the prescribed period.[13]
A close scrutiny of the records does not disclose any attempt by
respondent
Judge to request for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the
aforementioned
cases. Not only did he consign the cases in limbo for an unreasonable
period
of 13 years, worse, respondent Judge brought the records of the
unresolved
cases to his new station without clearance from the Office of the Court
Administrator. Upon his transfer to another post, respondent
Judge
should have asked the permission of the Court Administrator to bring
the
records of the cases to his new assignment or should have apprised the
parties of his action with respect thereto. This way, the Office
of the Court Administrator and the parties involved are aware of the
progress
of the cases instead of leaving them in the dark. More
importantly,
this would dispel any suspicion that the respondent Judge was unduly
holding
on to the records for corrupt or ill motives.chanrobles virtual law library
Members of the judiciary
have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay. A
judge who failed to do so has to suffer the consequences of his
omission.
Any delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith in
the judiciary.cralaw:red
The office of a judge
exists for one solemn end – to promote the ends of justice by
administering
it speedily and impartially. The judge as the person presiding over
that
court is the visible representation of the law and justice. These are
self-evident
dogmas which do not even have to be emphasized but which we always
advert
to when some members of the judiciary commit legal missteps or stray
from
the axioms of judicial ethics.[14]
More importantly, failure to resolve cases submitted for decision
within
the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of the
constitutional
right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.[15]
Rule 1.02 of the Code
of Judicial Conduct states:
Rule 1.02.
– A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.
In line with this, the
Court has laid down administrative guidelines to ensure that the
mandates
on the prompt disposition of judicial business are complied with. Thus,
SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87 states, in pertinent part:chanrobles virtual law library
3. Judges
shall
observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15
of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or
matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be
decided
or resolved within twelve months from date of submission by all lower
collegiate
courts while all other lower courts are given a period of three months
to do so. (Emphasis and italics supplied.)
A judge’s inability to
decide a case within the required period is not excusable and
constitutes
gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative
sanctions.[16]
A judge should, at all times, remain in full control of the proceedings
in his sala and, more importantly, should follow the time limit set for
deciding cases.[17]chanrobles virtual law library
Furthermore, respondent
Judge should be held liable for his failure to obey directives from
this
Court and the Court Administrator.cralaw:red
In his Comment, respondent
Judge admitted that he received the directives from the OCA and from
this
Court but that he “forgot” to comply.cralaw:red
Needless to say, judges
should respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, much more
so this Court from which all other courts should take their
bearings.
A resolution of the Supreme Court is not to be construed as a mere
request
and should not be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively.[18]
Respondent Judge’s impious defiance of the directives of the OCA and of
this Court borders on contumacy which deserves no compassion. He cannot
simply shrug off his non-compliance and pass the blame to his faltering
memory to justify his inaction. His explanation displays a cavalier
attitude
which mocks the lawful authority of this Court.cralaw:red
In the Judiciary, moral
integrity is more than a cardinal virtue, it is a necessity.[19]
Respondent Judge must bear in mind that the exacting standards of
conduct
demanded of judges are designed to promote public confidence in the
integrity
and impartiality of the judiciary. When the judge himself becomes the
transgressor
of the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in
disrepute,
encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the
integrity of the judiciary itself.[20]chanrobles virtual law library
Aside from respondent
Judge’s gross inefficiency, the records show that despite the pendency
of the cases subject hereof, he was able to collect his salaries upon
his
certification that he has no pending cases to resolve. A
certificate
of service is an instrument essential to the fulfillment by the judges
of their duty to speedily dispose of their cases as mandated by the
Constitution.
A judge who fails to decide cases within the prescribed period but
collects
his salary upon a false certificate is guilty of dishonesty amounting
to
gross misconduct and deserves the condemnation of all right thinking
men.[21]
In view of the primordial role of judges in the administration of
justice,
only those with irreproachable integrity and probity must be entrusted
with judicial powers.cralaw:red
In fine, the Court holds
that respondent Judge committed gross misconduct and gross inefficiency
under Rule 140, Section 8(3) of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended,
which are classified as a serious offense punishable by any of the
sanctions
enumerated in Section 11 of the same Rule, to wit:
Section 11.
Sanctions. – A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of
the following sanctions may be imposed:chanrobles virtual law library
1. Dismissal from
the
service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine
and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public
office,
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
however,
that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;
2. Suspension from
office
with salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not
exceeding
six (6) months; orchanrobles virtual law library
3. A fine of more
than
P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.chanrobles virtual law library
It appears that this is
not respondent Judge’s first offense. He had been previously
admonished
by the Court in a Resolution dated March 20, 2002 for failure to decide
motions and pending incidents within the reglementary period, and was
warned
that any subsequent transgressions he commits would be dealt with more
severely.[22]
All told, respondent
Judge failed to live up to the exacting standards of his office. The
magnitude
of his transgressions, taken collectively, renders him unfit to don the
judicial robe and to perform the functions of a magistrate.
Therefore,
the imposition of the supreme penalty of dismissal from the service is
warranted.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, respondent Judge Jaime T. Hamoy of the Regional Trial
Court
of Caloocan City, Branch 130, is DISMISSED from the service, with
forfeiture
of all retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and with
prejudice
to re-employment in any branch, agency or instrumentality of the
government
including government-owned or controlled corporations. Respondent
Judge shall forthwith CEASE and DESIST from performing any official act
or function appurtenant to his office upon service on him of this
decision.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide,
C.J., Puno,
Quisumbing, Panganiban, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio,
Austria-Martinez,
Carpio-Morales, Azcuna, Corona, Callejo, Sr.,Tinga and Chico-Nazario,
JJ.
,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rule 3.05 – A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and
decide cases within the required periods.
[2]
Rollo, p. 4.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id., p. 3.
[4]
Id., p. 5.
[5]
Id., p. 11.
[6]
Id., p. 12.
[7]
Id., p. 17.
[8]
Id., p. 56.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Pagayao v. Imbing, A.M. No. RTJ-89-403, 15 August 2001, 363 SCRA 26.
[10]
Gonzales-Decano v. Siapno, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279, 1 March 2001, 353 SCRA
269.
[11]
Visbal v. Ramos, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1306, 20 March 2001, 354 SCRA 631.
[12]
Gordon v. Lilagan, 414 Phil. 221 [2001].chanrobles virtual law library
[13]
Request of Judge Irma Zita V. Masamayor, RTC-Br. 52, Talibon, Bohol,
for
Extension of Time to Decide Civil Case No. 0020 and Criminal Case No.
98-384;
AM No. 98-12-381-RTC, 5 October 1999. ALEXchanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Ruperto v. Banquerigo, 355 Phil. 420 [1998].chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Branch 34, Regional Trial
Court
of Iriga City, 381 Phil. 386 [2000], citing Re: Judge Fernando P.
Agdamag,
325 Phil. 111 [1996].
[16]
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court,
Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, A.M. No. 93-2-1001-RTC,
5 September 1995, 248 SCRA 5; Sanchez v. Vestil, 358 Phil. 477 [1998].chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Hernandez v. De Guzman, 322 Phil. 65 [1996].chanrobles virtual law library
[18]
Guerrero v. Deray, A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, 10 December 2002, 393 SCRA 591.
[19]
Pascual v. Judge Rodolfo R. Bonifacio, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1625, 10 March
2003,
398 SCRA 695.
[20]
Vedaña v. Valencia, 356 Phil. 317, 329 [1998].chanrobles virtual law library
[21]
Re: Request for the Expeditious Resolution of Civil Case No. 92-07-117
Pending at RTC-Branch 9, Tacloban City, A.M. No. 97-8-242-RTC, 5 August
1998.
[22]
Ang v. Judge Hamoy, A.M. OCA-IPI No. 99-676-RTJ, 20 March 2002 (Minute
Resolution). |