This is another complaint against the Metropolitan Trial Court Judge of Pasig City (Judge JR). The complaint stems from her failure to put her judgment in writing. The question here is whether a decision can be made verbally.
At the promulgation of the judgment in Criminal Case No. 19110 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. spouses Sebastian et.al.” for falsification of public document pending before Judge JR, the branch clerk read only the dispositive portion of the decision convicting the couple. The couple’s counsel requested for a copy of the decision but Judge JR replied that the decision had not yet been printed although she could give him a diskette which contained the same. The counsel however refused.
Judge JR then declared that she would later re-promulgate the decision and asked the couple to stay in court while other cases in the calendar were called out. The couple’s counsel then already left not wanting to be a part of the irregularity and due to other pressing commitments. Then at around 11 a.m. inside the chambers Judge JR read the judgment from a computer screen without giving the accused couple a written copy or computer print-out of the decision. She merely required the couple to read it from the computer screen in camera without the presence of their counsel.
The couple raised on appeal that the trial court failed to comply with the mandate of Rule 120, or the Rules of Court and Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution requiring that the decision must be written and signed by the judge with a clear statement of the facts and the law on which the decision is based. Then they also filed an administrative complaint against Judge JR for gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, incompetence and inefficiency. Was the judge guilty?
Yes. She violated the Constitution. She could have simply printed and signed the decision. Offering to a party’s counsel a diskette containing the decision when such counsel demands a written copy thereof, is unheard of in the judiciary. A verbal judgment is, in contemplation of law, in esse, ineffective. If Judge JR was not yet prepared to promulgate the decision as it was not yet printed, she could have called the case later and have it printed. A party should not be left in the dark on what issues to raise before the appellate court.
It is a requirement of due process that parties to litigations be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. A decision that does not clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as to how it was reached and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to point the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal.
If judges were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond the boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then the law becomes meaningless. A government of laws excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority.
For having been found guilty of these charges, among others, Judge JR was declared unfit to discharge her functions a judge and dismissed from the service (A.M. No. MTJ-06-1638, September 18, 2009, Florencio Sebastian, Jr. vs. Julia A. Reyes, 600 SCRA, 345, 376).
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: jcson@pldtdsl.net