THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1554. June 1, 2000]
SIMEON B.
GANZON II, complainant, vs. JUDGE JULIAN Y. EREŅO, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 27, Iloilo City, respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
VITUG, J.: Jksm
In a verified complaint, dated 27 February
1998, Simeon B. Ganzon II charged Judge Julian Y. Ereņo of the Regional Trial
Court of Iloilo City, Branch 27, with having knowingly rendered an unjust
judgment, unreasonable delay in the administration of justice and gross
inefficiency/neglect in the performance of duty relative to Election Protest
Cases No. 10-1995 and No. 10-1995-A. Election Protest Case No. 10-1995
("Simeon B. Ganzon II vs. Cresenciano Duremdes, Sr.") challenged the
result of the May 1995 election for the mayoralty post in the Municipality of
Balasan, Iloilo, while Election Protest Case No. 10-1995-A ("Juber Pasco
vs. Susan Bedro") assailed the election result for the vice-mayoralty
position. According to complainant, the consolidated decision handed down by
respondent Judge in the election protest cases was contrary to law, not
supported by evidence, and rendered with conscious and deliberate intent to do
an injustice to a party litigant, asseverating that while the basis of the
judgment was that no votes should be considered in favor of either party in
Precinct No. 5-1-A, yet Annex B[1] of the decision would show that respondent Judge
credited candidates for vice-mayor with votes coming from said precinct. In
addition, complainant claimed, the tabulation of the election results[2] indicated certain inconsistencies and deductions of
votes from those garnered by each candidate which were unsupported either by
the stenographic notes or by any explanation, thereby making it difficult for
complainant to figure out the meaning of the decision of respondent judge for
purposes of appeal.
Respondent Judge was also put to task by
complainant for delaying the resolution of pending incidents in the protest
cases and for entertaining various motions and pleadings from the protestee
which were just intended to delay the disposition of the cases. Complainant
called attention to the fact that while the election protests were filed on 18
August 1995 with respondent Judge taking cognizance of the cases on 11
September 1995, the protests, however, were decided only on 17 September 1997.
Finally, complainant bewailed the failure of
respondent judge to exert efforts in ascertaining the correct figures in the
computation of votes from the contested precincts. Complainant claimed that he
had yet to prod the court and its personnel in the transcription of the
stenographic notes, which were ultimately completed only on 22 April 1997 or
four months after the termination of the revision of the ballots on 22 December
1996.
Respondent Judge denied the charges and
questioned the motive of complainant in filing the administrative case
considering that the election protest cases were decided on 17 September 1997
while the administrative case was filed much belatedly on 04 March 1998, just a
week before he was due to retire. He stated, in passing, that complainant was
known for his propensity for filing administrative cases. Chiefx
In response to the charge that he had
knowingly rendered an unjust judgment, respondent Judge averred that he did
disallow the mayoralty candidates to be credited with votes coming from
Precinct 5-1-A and allowed the vice-mayoralty candidates to be credited with
votes from the same precinct but only with respect to those agreed upon by the
candidates themselves as so appearing on the tally board.
Relative to the delay in the disposition of
the case, respondent Judge, while acknowledging the time imperatives in
election cases, countered, however, that all other vital matters involved had
likewise to be carefully considered in order to avoid any possible injustice to
a party. He explained that before the cases were assigned to his sala,
there was a pending motion to dismiss on the ground that mayoralty and
vice-mayoralty protest cases could not be joined, and it was he who prevailed
upon the protestees to allow the protestants (herein complainant among them) to
amend the election protest, which they finally did on 29 January 1996, in order
to hasten their disposition. Still, thereafter, motions for his inhibition and
for transfer of venue were filed due to his alleged "closeness" to a
relative of complainant.
The Office of the Court Administrator, to
which the case was referred for investigation, report and recommendation,
recommended that the complaint be so docketed as an administrative matter, that
the charges, with the exception of the case for unreasonable delay in the
administration of justice, be dismissed, and that respondent be meted a fine in
the amount of P5,000.00.
In the resolution of the Court on 24 March
1999, the parties were required to manifest whether they would be willing to
submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings and documents on
record. On 21 July 1999, respondent Judge responded affirmatively. Complainant
failed to comply with the resolution constraining the Court to require counsel
for complainant to show cause why she should not be disciplinarily dealt with
for ignoring the directive. Counsel for complainant thereupon submitted her
explanation and manifestation that complainant was submitting the case for
resolution on the basis of the pleadings and documents on file. Finding the
explanation not fully satisfactory, the Court, in its 15th December 1999
resolution, admonished counsel and resolved to docket the case.
The Court adopts the report of the OCA.
In order to justify a disciplinary action
against a judge, or to render him accountable, for an unjust judgment, the
error or mistake must be gross or patent, malicious or deliberate, or done in
bad faith;[3] any other rule can subject him to undue risks,
untold anxiety, and inordinate harassment, or the like, that could make his job
miserable and unbearable. As so observed by the OCA - Esm
"x x x To be liable therefor, it must
be shown beyond reasonable doubt that the judgment is unjust and that it was
made with conscious and deliberate intent to do an injustice (Wingarts vs.
Majia, 242 SCRA 436, 446) It must be shown that the judge not only rendered a
judgment or decision not supported by law and/or evidence but that he was actuated
by hatred and envy, revenge, greed or some other similar motives. (Dela Cruz
vs. Concepcion, 235 SCRA 597, 603) Complainant failed to show that respondent
judge had ill motives in rendering the decision and similarly the records of
the case fails to support the accusation."
With respect to the charge of gross
incompetence and neglect in the performance of duty, the Court sustains the OCA
in its finding that the charge has not been substantiated at all, and it must
accordingly be dismissed.
Anent the delay in administration of
justice, respondent Judge averred that the cases were first assigned to two
other judges before him. It was not disputed, however, that he took cognizance
of the election protest cases on 11 September 1995, and the decision was rendered
by him only on 17 September 1997. The OCA was thus justified in its
disquisition when it said:
"x x x Part VI, Rule 35, Section 18 of
the COMELEC Rules of procedure mandates that every election contest involving
municipal officials must be decided within thirty (30) days from the date it is
submitted for decision, but in every case within six (6) months after its
filing.
"Respondent can not take refuge behind
the filing of complainant of an amended petition nor on the temporary
restraining order issued by the Court of Appeals enjoining the proceedings
which was lifted by the Supreme Court on February 18, 1997 because these
incidents contributed very little to the delay. Neither can respondent be
exonerated by the alleged numerous matters which to the mind of respondent are
vital and can not just be disregarded or dispensed with. This Court in
Hernandez vs. De Guzman (252 SCRA 643, 67) reminded judge that they should, at
all times, remain in full control of the proceedings and more importantly, he
should follow the time limit for deciding the cases. Similarly, this Court
ruled that judges should not be at the mercy of the lawyer and the parties. It
is not the convenience of the parties appearing before his Court which should
be the primordial consideration of a judge but the administration of justice.
(Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Inventory of the Record of Cases in the
RTC, Branch 43, Roxas, Mindoro Oriental, 236 SCRA 631." Esmsc
It may be worth reiterating that trial
judges, being the paradigm of justice in the first instance, are exhorted to
dispose of the business of the court promptly and to decide cases within the
periods prescribed therefor.[4] An undue failure to heed this mandate constitutes a
ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge.[5] Considering his explanation, however, the Court
deems it appropriate to reduce the recommended fine on respondent judge to
P3,000.00.
Respondent Judge has compulsorily retired on
07 March 1998 but he has not been able to receive his full retirement benefits
because of the pendency of this administrative case and another which is
docketed A.M. No. 98-2-45-RTC.
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge Julian Y. Ereņo guilty of
delay in disposing EPC Case No. 10-1995 and 10-1995-A, the Court hereby imposes
on him a FINE of THREE THOUSAND (P3,000.00) PESOS to be deducted from whatever
retirement benefits due him. The other charges against respondent judge in this
administrative case are dismissed. Let then the Fiscal Management Office,
Office of the Court Administrator, release the balance of the retirement
benefits of respondent Judge less whatever monetary liability he might be
subject to in A.M. No. 98-2-45-RTC.
SO ORDERED. Esmmis
Melo, (Chairman), Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Panganiban, J., on leave.