SECOND DIVISION
|
GIOVANNI
A. FLAVIANO,
Complainant,
- versus -
|
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2003
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-2245-RTJ)
Present:
Quisumbing, J., Chairperson,
Carpio,
Carpio Morales,
Tinga, and
VELASCO, JR., JJ.
|
|
HONORABLE JUDGE OSCAR E. DINOPOL, Presiding Judge,
Regional Trial Court, 11th Judicial Region, Branch 24, Koronadal
City,
Respondent.
|
Promulgated:
August 23, 2007
|
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
RESOLUTION
QUISUMBING, J.:
In a Complaint dated March
28, 2005, complainant Giovanni A. Flaviano
charged Executive Judge Oscar E. Dinopol of the Regional Trial Court (RTC),
Branch 24, Koronadal City, with serious misconduct and gross
inefficiency.
Complainant narrates that sometime in 2001, he and his family, in
representation of New Mindanao Pioneer
and People’s Daily Forum
respectively, filed Petitions for Accreditation to Publish Legal/Judicial
Notices and Orders with Branch 24 presided by respondent. Similar petitions for accreditation were also
filed by six other publications, namely, Newsmaker,
Sarangani Journal, Southern Review, Mindanao Bulletin, New
Dadiangas Times and Southern Recorder. On February
28, 2002, respondent issued an Order granting
provisional accreditation, pending completion of the study on the applications,
to the six other applicants. As the
order had no explanation for the exclusion of complainant’s publications, on March
10, 2002, complainant sent respondent a
letter asking for
reconsideration of the order. But
respondent took no action.
On June 19, 2002, respondent extended the provisional
accreditations, giving the six applicants until the end of the year to complete
the deficiencies. Later, when an opposition was filed against
the application of Southern Recorder,
respondent issued an Order on July
4, 2002, shortening the period of
provisional accreditation of Southern
Recorder, but reiterated the grant as regards the other five publications.
Believing that no favorable action would result from their
applications, complainant and his family decided to forego their pending
applications. Complainant instead filed
on October 17, 2003, a new application, docketed as
Miscellaneous Case No. 1346-24, for their other publication The South Cotabato
Forum. Thereafter, he filed a motion
for inhibition, but did not attend the hearing which was set for April
19, 2004, since opposing counsel had
manifested that the latter could not attend.
On April 19, 2004, respondent dismissed Miscellaneous
Case No. 1346-24 because of complainant’s
absence. Complainant immediately filed a
motion for reconsideration. The motion was submitted for decision on August
6, 2004, but respondent has not resolved the
motion up to the time of the filing of the instant complaint, thus leaving to
hang indefinitely complainant’s application to publish judicial and legal
notices.
Complainant further narrates that on June
17, 2002, the publishers of Newsmaker, Sarangani Journal, Southern
Review, and Mindanao Bulletin
filed a motion to cite complainant and his parents in indirect contempt of
court. Upon respondent’s order, he and his parents
filed an answer with motion to dismiss, contending that the motion to cite in
contempt was patently defective. The movants filed
their reply on August 30, 2002, but the motion remained
unresolved.
Complainant now alleges that by granting provisional
accreditations pending study of the applications, respondent had violated A.M
No. 01-1-07-SC, Re: Guidelines in
the Accreditation of Newspapers and Periodicals Seeking to Publish Judicial and
Legal Notices and Other Similar Announcements and in the Raffle Thereof, which required
evaluation and approval of applications for accreditation before a newspaper or
periodical may be allowed to publish judicial or legal notices. Complainant likewise assails the provisional
accreditations, arguing that none of the other applicants were entitled to it. The applications of the six grantees,
according to him, were superseded by the requirements of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC and should have been dismissed
outright without further evaluation under Section 5 for being
deficient. Further, OCA Circular No. 27-2002, which clarified
certain provisions of the guidelines, mandated Executive Judges to require
newspapers and periodicals to file new applications under the new guidelines on
or before July 31, 2002, and to evaluate such applications
on or before September 15, 2002.
New applications therefore should have been required from the six publications
before they could be granted any new accreditations. Respondent however, not only failed to
require the filing of new petitions, he also granted provisional accreditation
notwithstanding a finding that all petitions were deficient.
Complainant further argues that respondent was manifestly
hostile to them, and unduly favored the six other publications. He points out (1) that respondent allegedly excluded their
publications from provisional accreditation without justification, since no
evaluation of the applications had yet been completed at the time; (2) that respondent never acted on their
letter of reconsideration; (3) that respondent entertained the
patently defective motion to cite them in indirect contempt and unduly refused to
resolve the said motion, thus prolonging their anxiety; (4) that respondent summarily dismissed
Miscellaneous Case No. 1346-24 although complainant was only absent
during the hearing of an incidental motion to inhibit; and (5) that respondent unduly delays the
resolution of the pending motion for reconsideration to their prejudice.
Complainant further charges respondent with gross
inefficiency and violation of Canon 1, Rule 1.02 and Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct for failing to resolve the motion to cite in contempt and the motion
for reconsideration.
In his comment dated July
21, 2005, respondent counters that he afforded complainant and his
family due process in all their applications for accreditation. He alleges that on June
27, 2001, he scheduled the application for
the People’s Daily Forum for initial
hearing to take place on September 21 and 26, 2001.
Complainant, however, did not take further action. Likewise, according to respondent, on June
4, 2002, he directed complainant to submit
proof of continuous publication of the New
Mindanao Pioneer and of The South
Cotabato Forum, for which complainant had also
filed an application. Although complainant
received the order on June 19, 2002, he did not comply. Thus, in two separate orders, both dated March
22, 2005, he dismissed their applications for
manifest lack of interest, after the lapse of more than three (3) years. Complainant neither moved for reconsideration
of either the order of provisional accreditation or the order of dismissal, nor
filed an appeal with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) pursuant to
A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC.
In Miscellaneous Case No. 1346-24, respondent alleges that said
application was dismissed because complainant, as movant, failed to prove the
grounds relied upon.
On the issue of provisional accreditation, respondent denies
having violated A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC and asserts that his granting accreditations provisionally was correct precisely because
the applications were deficient. Respondent
adds that even before his assumption to office in
January 2002, the six other applicants have been recognized by the court,
sans accreditation, and were the only
ones allowed to participate in the raffling of notices for publications. It would be unfair and inequitable to deny them
accreditation. Since there were no
accredited newspapers for his court, he provisionally accredited the six
publications to obviate disruption of publication of notices. Complainant’s newspapers were never recognized
previously and have not participated in the raffle of notices.
Respondent further alleges that he had already granted the
motion for reconsideration of the dismissal in an Order issued on April
4, 2005. Miscellaneous Case
No. 1346-24 was set for further hearing in the
same order, but the records have been transferred to the new Executive Judge at
RTC, Branch 25, Koronadal City.
On the matter of contempt charges against the complainant and
his parents, respondent claims that his failure to resolve the charges was not
relevant to complainant’s application for the accreditation of his publications. Neither has it substantially prejudiced
complainant.
The OCA found respondent liable for violating A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC and recommended that he be fined P5,000.
We deemed this case submitted for resolution when both
parties kept silent on whether we should decide on the basis of their
pleadings.
We find respondent liable.
By his own admission, respondent did not
decide the indirect contempt charge from the time it was submitted for resolution
up to the time of the filing of the instant complaint, two (2) years and (8) eight
months later, thus, unduly prolonging the
anxiety of complainant and his family.
He likewise resolved complainant’s motion for reconsideration in
Miscellaneous Case No. 1346-24 only on April
4, 2005, or nearly eight (8) months from the
time it was submitted for resolution on August
6, 2004.
He is demonstrably guilty of undue delay which, under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court, is classified as a less serious offense 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 but not
exceeding P20,000.
That judges should dispose of court business promptly within
the period prescribed by law or the extended time granted them by this Court,
is mandated by Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, and by no less than the Constitution itself. Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the
faith and confidence of the public in the institution of justice. Notably, it does not appear that respondent
asked this Court to approve an extension of time to resolve the pending
incidents, if truly he were overburdened with existing duties and a heavy
caseload.
In addition, we find respondent also liable
for violating the simple and clear provisions of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC. Noteworthy,
A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC, prescribing the guidelines in the accreditation of
newspapers and periodicals, explicitly provides that only accredited newspapers
or periodicals may publish judicial and legal notices. Section 5 thereof
provides that any application for accreditation that fails to comply with any
of the requirements prescribed by the guidelines shall be denied without further
evaluation. The use of the word “shall”
gives no discretion on the part of the Executive Judge regarding the
denial. Having determined that the
applications of the Newsmaker, Sarangani Journal, Southern Review, Mindanao
Bulletin, New Dadiangas
Times and Southern Recorder were
deficient, respondent should have dismissed them outright without need of further
evaluation. His reason for granting
provisional accreditation—to obviate disruption of publication—does not
authorize him to disregard the mandatory guidelines. This is especially so since the guidelines in
Section 7
authorize the accreditation of a qualified publication in the nearest city or
province in the event that there is no newspaper or periodical qualified to be
accredited in the station of the RTC.
Respondent likewise disregarded OCA Circular No. 27-2002, which mandated
all Executive Judges to require newspapers and periodicals to file new
petitions under the guidelines, when he continued to act on the old
applications in his Order of July 4, 2002.
WHEREFORE, for undue delay in rendering a decision or order and for
violating the clear provisions of A.M. No. 01-1-07-SC, respondent Executive Judge Oscar
E. Dinopol of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 24, Koronadal City, is FINED in the amount of P11,000.
He is sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act in the
future shall be dealt with by the Court more severely.
SO ORDERED.
LEONARDO A.
QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES DANTE
O. TINGA
Associate Justice Associate Justice
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice