Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248)
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248)
Facts:
Judge Adoracion G. Angeles, Complainant, vs. Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Quezon City, Branch 225, Respondent, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248*, September 29, 2010, Supreme Court Second Division, Mendoza, J., writing for the Court.Complainant Judge Adoracion G. Angeles filed an administrative complaint for disbarment and removal from the judiciary against respondent Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy arising from alleged undue delays and falsification in two consolidated criminal cases: Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-62690 (People v. Proclyn Pacay; People v. P/Insp. Roberto Ganias). The complaint charged respondent with violations of Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution; multiple provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and prior Codes of Judicial Ethics; provisions of the Code of Professional Responsibility; Section 4(b) of Republic Act No. 6713; falsification of official documents; and dishonesty.
The OCA summarized the operative chronology: the consolidated cases were submitted for decision by order dated 20 June 2008 with initial promulgation set for 11 September 2008. Respondent moved to defer promulgation to 17 September 2008 for a scheduled medical consultation; subsequent resettings followed — to 17 October 2008 (alleged voluminous records and health grounds), to 14 November 2008, and finally to 12 December 2008 after three requests for extension. The Joint Decision was promulgated on 12 December 2008 acquitting most accused. Complainant alleged the decision was belated (six months after submission) and that respondent’s claimed extension requests and Supreme Court resolutions granting them were not in the court records.
After the Joint Decision, accused SPO1 Roberto C. Carino filed an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration on 5 January 2009; the prosecution filed its Opposition on 14 January 2009. At a hearing on 29 January 2009 respondent purportedly gave the defense ten days to file a reply. The case record lacked an express court order compelling a reply; the Branch Clerk certified absence of such an order and noted a possible alteration in the submission-for-resolution date. No order submitting the motion for resolution was issued until 30 July 2009, and respondent denied the Urgent Motion by Resolution dated 24 August 2009.
Respondent denied bad faith, explained that she inherited voluminous records, produced medical and itinerary evidence for reschedulings, and presented three letters requesting extensions which she said were granted by the Supreme Court — although those extension resolutions were kept separate from the branch records. She attributed the delay on the motion for reconsideration in part to her giving the defense time to file a reply and to deaths threats received by her office between May and July 2009, causing disorientation.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found no culpable delay in promulgating the Joint Decision (the Court had granted extensions totaling 90 days reckoned from 18 September 2008) but recommended administrative sanction for delay in resolving accused Carino’s motion. The OCA proposed re-docketing as a regular administrative matter and imposing a P2,000 fine with warning. The Supreme Court reviewed the OCA report and all pleadings in this administrative/disciplinary proceeding (converted pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC) and issued the present decision on September 29, 2010.
Issues:
- Did respondent Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy commit unreasonable delay in rendering the Joint Decision in Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-62690?
- Did respondent commit unreasonable delay in resolving accused Carino’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration?
- Do the allegations of falsification, dishonesty, and other ethical violations warrant disbarment, dismissal from the judiciary, or other severe sanctions?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)