Unintentional but negligent

The negligence or lack of due diligence in the performance of judicial functions resulting in undue delay in the administration of justice, even if not malicious, also renders a judge administratively liable. This is the ruling in this case of a municipal judge (Judge TP).

On March 13, 1970, a criminal complaint for frustrated homicide was filed with Judge TP’s court by Pacita, a resident of the municipality against another resident, Ludy. Judge TP then immediately issued a warrant for Ludy’s arrest and fixed the bond at P15,000. On March 23, 1970, the warrant was served on Ludy who thereafter filed a motion to reduce bail bond to P6,000. Judge TP granted the said motion and set the preliminary investigation on April 14, 1970.

From that date up to March 27, 1971, the case was scheduled for hearing twenty one (21) times. Nine (9) of the scheduled hearings were postponed at the instance of Pacita, one (1) postponed at the instance of Ludy while four (4) of the hearings were cancelled by the court due to crowded calendar. Hence only seven (7) out of the scheduled hearings were held.

The parties then asked for 15 days from March 27, 1971 to file their memoranda simultaneously. On April 17, 1971 Ludy asked for extension of ten (10) days within which to file her memorandum which was granted. Eventually however, the accused Ludy did not file any memorandum; neither did the complainant Pacita.

On April 27, 1971 the case was submitted for resolution and the ninety-day period for resolving it expired on July 27, 1971. It was only on October 17, 1972 when Judge TP remanded the case to the Court of First Instance for further proceedings.

During the 15 month period from July 27, 1971 to October 17, 1972, Judge TP collected his salaries as municipal judge upon his certification that all civil and criminal cases submitted to him for decision or resolution for a period of ninety days had been decided or determined on or before the making of the certification.

Based on these facts, Pacita charged Judge TP with: (a) malicious delay in the administration of justice under Article 207 of the Revised Penal Code because the preliminary investigation of the criminal case against Ludy was terminated on April 17, 1971 and he did not resolve it until October 17, 1972 or eighteen (18) months later; and (b) violation of Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1948 because during the period of eighteen (18) months that the criminal case remained unresolved, Judge TP continued to collect his salaries, falsely certifying that all civil and criminal cases submitted to him for decision or determination has been decided within the 90 day period. Was Judge TP guilty as charged?

On the first charge, the delay in the investigation was due partly to Pacita herself and to the desire of the parties to settle the case amicably. This precludes any conclusion that Judge TP maliciously delayed the termination of the preliminary investigation of the criminal case. Rather it was due to his liberality in acceding to the motions of the parties for postponement. In order that a judge could be held criminally liable for violation of Article 207 of the Revised Penal Code, the delay must have been done maliciously, that is, the delay is caused by the judge with deliberate intent to inflict damage on either party in the case.

But while it is true that Judge TP did not act maliciously or in bad faith, he has nonetheless shown lack of due diligence in the performance of his judicial functions resulting in the undue delay in the administration of justice. He should have observed greater care in the scrutiny of his docket. The people’s faith in the administration of justice especially to those who belong to the low income group would be greatly impaired if decisions are long in coming, more so from trial courts, which unlike collegiate tribunals where there is a need for extended deliberation, should act with dispatch. Hence for his negligence in not resolving with promptness and dispatch the preliminary investigation of the criminal case, Judge TP should be subject to administrative sanctions.

On the other hand, the falsification committed by Judge TP in preparing his Certificates of Service, while likewise unintentional, was nonetheless due to his inefficiency and negligence. He should have observed greater care in the preparation of his monthly certificates of service. This is a duty which he should have performed with due care and diligence. Hence for his false Certificates of Service in violation of Section 5 of the Judiciary Act of 1948, he should also be subject to administrative sanctions.

For his negligence, Judge TP should pay a fine equivalent to his salary for three (3) months without a warning that a repetition of the same acts in the future will merit a more severe penalty (Magdamo vs. Pahimulin, Adm. Matter No. 662-MJ, September 30, 1976, 73 SCRA 110)

*      *      *

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call Tel. 7249445.

*      *      *

E-mail at: [email protected]