THIRD DIVISION
|
EDGARDO D. AREOLA (a.k.a.
MOHAMMAD KAHDAFFY), Complainant, - versus - JUDGE BAYANI Y. ILANO,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 71, Respondent. |
A.M.
No. RTJ-09-2163
(Formerly OCA IPI No.
07-2717-RTJ) Present: QUISUMBING,*
J., AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,**
Acting Chairperson, CHICO-NAZARIO, NACHURA, and PERALTA, JJ. Promulgated: February
18, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
RESOLUTION
NACHURA, J.:
This refers to the administrative
complaint filed by Edgardo D. Areola (a.k.a. Mohammad Kahdaffy) against Judge
Bayani Y. Ilano, Regional Trial Court (RTC),
The antecedent facts which gave rise
to the administrative case are as follows:
Complainant Edgardo D. Areola, Police
Officer (PO)3 Manuel Bayaga and Antonio Bayaga were charged with Murder. The
case, docketed as Criminal Case No. 94-11519, was raffled to the RTC, Branch
72,
On July 1, 2002, Judge Mauricio
Rivera issued an order denying the Urgent Motion for Admission to Bail filed by
accused Areola and the Motion for Bail filed by the two other accused. A motion
for reconsideration was duly filed but then Judge Rivera voluntarily inhibited himself
from handling the case. Hence, the case
was transferred to RTC, Branch 74, under Judge Francisco Querubin.
On March 16, 2004, Judge Querubin
issued an order granting the Motion for Bail of PO3 Manuel Bayaga and Antonio
Bayaga only and fixed the bail at P100,000.00 each. On May 6, 2004,
complainant filed a Manifestation stating therein that he should likewise be
granted bail. Upon motion of the complainant, Judge Querubin recused
himself so the case was assigned to Branch 71, presided over by Judge Bayani Y.
Ilano, herein respondent.
Thereafter, Judge Ilano also
expressed that he was inhibiting from the case but pursuant to a Memorandum
from the Office of the Court Administrator, he was compelled to handle the case
because the pairing judge of the heinous crimes court (Branch 74) had earlier inhibited from the case.
On April 11, 2006, complainant filed
an Urgent Motion to Resolve Motion for Reconsideration of the Order of Judge
Mauricio Rivera dated July 1, 2002 which denied the Urgent Motion for Admission
to Bail.
On
July 28, 2006, complainant filed a Second Urgent Motion to Resolve and to Grant
Motion for Admission to Bail, and another Manifestation and Motion dated August
29, 2006 reiterating his prayer to be admitted to bail.
Meanwhile, on September 4, 2006,
Judge Ilano issued an Order directing the transfer of the complainant from the
Rizal Provincial Jail to the Antipolo City Jail upon an urgent ex-parte motion
filed by the Provincial Warden on even date.
On September 15, 2006, Judge Ilano
issued an Order denying Complainant’s Motion for Reconsideration.
Feeling aggrieved, complainant filed
the instant administrative complaint dated October 16, 2006 charging Judge
Ilano with violations of Republic Act No. 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt
Practices Act) and the New Code of Judicial Conduct, gross incompetence, gross
ignorance of the law, bias and partiality, frequent unjustified absences
without leave, and habitual tardiness.
Respondent Judge was asked to
Comment. As the records reveal, respondent Judge failed to file his Comment
despite receipt of the 1st Indorsement on December 13, 2006 and the
1st Tracer on March 14, 2007.
The show cause order[1] of
the Court was also not complied with; thus, Judge Ilano was fined in the amount
of P2,000.00 for such failure.[2]
The records also show that Judge
Ilano passed away on March 25, 2008.
In the Memorandum dated January 8,
2009, the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), clarified that the fact of death of the respondent during the pendency of the case does not
render the case moot and academic. The
Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent innocent of
the charges or declare him guilty thereof.
If innocent, respondent merits vindication of his name and integrity; if
guilty, he deserves to receive the correspondent censure and penalty proper and
imposable under the situation.[3]
After a perusal of the records, we
find complainant’s charges against
respondent Judge without basis. The
orders which were adverse to the complainant pertained to the
adjudicative function of respondent Judge.
As a matter of policy, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are
not subject to disciplinary action, no
matter how erroneous, as long as he acts in good faith. In the instant case,
the administrative complaint was obviously resorted to when complainant failed
to obtain the favorable action he wanted
from the court. It must be stressed that the filing of an administrative
complaint is not an appropriate remedy where judicial recourse is still
available, such as a motion for reconsideration, an appeal, or a petition for
certiorari, unless issued or rendered with ill motive. Only judicial errors tainted with fraud,
dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice
will be administratively sanctioned.[4] In the instant case, there is no proof that
the respondent Judge was moved by bad faith when he issued the alleged
erroneous orders. Needless to state,
bare allegations of bias and partiality
will not suffice. There must be clear
and convincing proof to overcome the presumption that the judge dispensed
justice according to law and evidence, without fear or favor.[5]
All these notwithstanding, the Court
can not gloss over the fact that respondent Judge was remiss in his duty for
his failure to resolve the pending motion for reconsideration with dispatch.
Under the Constitution, trial judges are given only ninety (90) days from the
filing of the last pleading within which to resolve the matter at hand.[6] Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, likewise, enunciates that judges should administer justice without
delay and dispose of the court’s business promptly within the period prescribed
by law. When respondent Judge took over the case, the motion for
reconsideration had already been long pending and several motions were filed
for its urgent resolution. Respondent Judge acted on said motion only after
five (5) months from the time the case was assigned to him. Unfortunately, respondent Judge’s explanation
on this matter is wanting as he failed to file any comment on the charges
hurled against him.
As the records reveal, respondent
Judge Ilano failed to file his comments on the administrative complaint against
him despite receipt of the notices to do so on December 13, 2006 and March 14,
2007. The resolutions of the Court requiring Comment on an administrative
complaint are not mere requests from the Court.
They are not to be complied with partially, inadequately or
selectively. Respondents in
administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations
against them because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the
judiciary. The Court will not tolerate
indifference of respondents to administrative complaints and to resolutions
requiring comment on such administrative complaints.[7] It must be stressed that every officer or
employee in the Judiciary is duty bound to obey the orders and processes of
this Court without the least delay and to exercise at all times a high degree
of professionalism.[8]
We have held that a judge who
deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution
of this Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination.[9] The respondent judge’s consistent failure to
comply with this Court’s directives should, therefore, merit the appropriate
sanction.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, Judge Bayani Y.
Ilano is hereby IMPOSED a FINE of P20,000.00 chargeable to
his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate
Justice
|
MA. ALICIA
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice Acting Chairperson |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate
Justice
* Additional member in lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 564 dated February 12, 2009.
** In lieu of Associate Justice Consuelo Ynares-Santiago per Special Order No. 563 dated February 12, 2009.
[1] Resolution dated January 23, 2008.
[2] . Resolution dated June 23, 2008.
[3] Zarate v. Romanillos, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1140, March 23, 1995, 242 SCRA 593, 605.
[4] Pitney v. Judge Abrogar, 461 Phil. 28, 34 (2003).
[5] Causin v. Demecillo, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1860, September 8, 2004, 437 SCRA 594, 606.
[6] Abarquez v. Rebosura, A.M. No. MTJ-94-986, January 28, 1998, 285 SCRA 109.
[7] Palon, Jr. v. Vallarta, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1530, March 7, 2007, 517
SCRA 624, 629.
[8] Chan v. Castillo, A.M. No. P-94-1055, November 25, 1994, 238 SCRA 359, 361.
[9]