DIGEST/NATAA/RAYMUNDO vs. ANDOY (2010)

 

CIRILA S. RAYMUNDO vs. JUDGE TERESITO A. ANDOY

A.M. No. MTJ-09-1738, October 6, 2010
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-2033-MTJ)

 

FACTS:

 

An administrative complaint for violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 31 of the Code of Judicial Conduct was filed by the complainant against respondent Judge Teresito A. Andoy. The complainant alleged that sometime in 2000, she filed 6 counts of violation of B.P. Blg. 22 against Hermelinda Chang before the Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal. The respondent judge presided over the court.

 

The trial originally ended on August 4, 2004, but for reasons not stated in the records, the cases were again set for trial on November 17, 2004 and later moved to December 20, 2004. The MTC ordered the cases submitted for decision when the accused once again failed to appear in court on December 20, 2004. The MTC reconsidered this order and again set the case for hearing on October 12, 2005. The accused and her counsel again failed to appear in court despite due notice. Thus, the MTC ordered the direct testimony of the accused to be stricken off the record, and again declared the cases submitted for decision.

 

On June 23, 2006, the complainant filed with the MTC an urgent ex parte motion to render decision. Almost two years later, the complainant filed a second ex parte motion to render decision. The respondent judge did not act on these motions. The Office of the Court Administrator required the respondent judge to comment on the complaint. In his comment, the respondent judge attributed his failure to render a decision to the heavy caseload in his sala.

 

ISSUE:

 

Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision.

 

RULING:

 

YES. The Court ruled that the respondent judge failed to observe the mandated period of time to decide cases under the Rule on Summary Procedure.

 

The Rule on Summary Procedure was promulgated by the Supreme Court to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive disposition of cases. Section 17 of this Rule requires the court to promulgate a judgment not later than 30 days after termination of trial. Also, the Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower courts shall be decided or resolved within 90 days from the time the case is submitted for decision. Failure to comply with the mandated period constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases – a lapse that undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute. This constitutional policy is reiterated in Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires a judge to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

 

In the present case, the subject cases involved violation of B.P. Blg. 22 which are covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure. These had been submitted for decision since October 12, 2005. While the respondent judge attributed his failure to render a decision to the heavy caseload in his sala, he did not ask for an extension of time to decide the cases. This failure to decide within the required period, given that he could have asked for an extension, is inexcusable. It constitutes neglect of duty as well as gross inefficiency that collectively warrant administrative sanction.

 

Judges are expected to observe utmost diligence and dedication in the performance of their judicial functions and the discharge of their duties. The failure or inability of a judge to decide a case within the period fixed by law subjects him to administrative sanctions. This is because undue delay in the disposition of cases contributes to the people’s loss of faith and confidence in the judiciary and brings it into disrepute.

 

-Digested by Vera L. Nataa

 

 

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

[ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT.

  THIRD DIVISION [ G.R. No. 214054, August 05, 2015 ] NG MENG TAM, PETITIONER, VS. CHINA BANKING CORPORATION, RESPONDENT. D E C I S I O N VILLARAMA, JR., J.: Before this Court is a direct recourse from the Regional Trial Court (RTC) via petition [1]  for review on the question of whether Section 5 [2]  of the  Judicial   Affidavit   Rule  (JAR) applies to hostile or adverse witnesses.  The petition seeks to annul and set aside the May 28, 2014 [3]  and August 27, 2014 [4]  Orders of the RTC, Branch 139, Makati City in Civil Case No. 08-1028. This case stemmed from a collection suit filed by China Banking Corporation (China Bank) against Ever Electrical Manufacturing Company Inc. (Ever), the heirs of Go Tong, Vicente Go, George Go and petitioner Ng Meng Tam sometime in December 2008.  China Bank alleged that it granted Ever a loan amounting to P5,532,331.63.  The loan was allegedly backed by two surety agreements executed by Vic...
Read more

DIGEST/ACOPIADO/ LARA GIFTS V. PNB 2018

Lara Gifts and Decors, Inc. vs. PNB GR. Nos. 230429-30| January 24, 2018 Digest by: A. Acopiado FACTS: Petitioner company insured a building with respondent bank. Sometime later, the subject of the insurance was gutted by fire. Respondent engaged services of independent appraisers for the fire loss, but the latter were unable to ascertain the damage due to petitioner’s failure to supply documents. Respondent thus denied the insurance claim.  Petitioner sued in the RTC. In the pre-trial the parties agreed to the facts and issues in dispute and the judge issued an order which stipulated that the parties agree to the presentation of additional evidence. None of the parties objected to the stipulation.  Sometime later, petitioner introduced an affidavit and documents which were not submitted in the pre-trial. Respondent objected stating that the same is violative of the judicial affidavit rule and the court memo governing pre-trial procedures and modes of discovery (A....
Read more

G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC., Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC., Respondents

 t HIRD DIVISION January 24, 2018 G.R. No. 230429 LARA'S GIFT AND DECORS, INC.,  Petitioner vs. PNB GENERAL INSURERS CO., INC. and UCPB GENERAL INSURANCE CO., INC. , Respondents D E C I S I O N VELASCO,JR.,  J.: Nature of the Case Before this Court is a petition for review under Rule 45 of the Rules of Court, seeking to reverse and set aside the March 6, 2017 Amended Decision 1  of the Court of Appeals (CA), Special Former Fifth Division, in CA-G.R. SP Nos. 138321 and 138774. The Amended Decision granted respondents' motions for the reconsideration of the December 21, 2015 Decision 2  of the CA's Former Fifth Division annulling and setting aside the Omnibus Orders dated October 1, 2014 and November 26, 2014 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Makati City, Branch 14 7, in Civil Case No. 11-238. Factual Antecedents Petitioner Lara's Gifts and Decors, Inc. (LGDI) is engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling, and exporting various handicraft items and decor...
Read more