A.M. No. 12-8-160-RTC - Angping vs. Ros

Petitioners Ambassador Harry C. Angping and Atty. Sixto Brillantes, representing the Philippine Sports Commission (PSC), filed a letter-complaint dated June 28, 2010.
The complaint was directed against Judge Reynaldo G. Ros of RTC Manila, Branch 33, alleging violation of Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

The criminal cases involved (Criminal Case Nos. 10-274696 to 10-274704) were filed against Julian Camacho and Bernardo Ong for qualified theft, with nine counts involved.
The cases were raffled to Branch 33 of RTC-Manila on March 23, 2010, and consequently assigned to Judge Ros.

On the same day the cases were assigned (March 23, 2010), Judge Ros issued an order dismissing the cases for lack of probable cause.
After a motion for reconsideration was filed by the petitioners, Judge Ros issued an Order dated April 16, 2010 which:

Directed the accused (Camacho and Ong) to file their comment within fifteen (15) days.
Provided the PSC a corresponding fifteen (15)-day period from receipt of the comment to file its reply before the motion for reconsideration could be resolved.

The accused filed their comment on May 26, 2010 after several motions for extension, with the PSC receiving the comment on June 3, 2010.
Petitioners filed their reply on June 18, 2010, within the allowed period; however, on that same day, the PSC received an Order dated May 28, 2010, by Judge Ros, which effectively denied the motion for reconsideration without waiting for the PSC’s reply.

The petitioners alleged that the speed and manner in which Judge Ros processed and dismissed the cases aroused doubts regarding his impartiality.
They contended that, given the voluminous records and the swift dismissal on the very day of assignment, it was implausible that the judge had thoroughly considered the merits of the case.
The failure to wait for the PSC’s reply and the apparent oversight in following his own order (April 16, 2010) were presented as evidence of bias and malice, thus breaching the required standards of judicial propriety.

In his comment, Judge Ros acknowledged an oversight in not adhering to his earlier directive allowing the PSC fifteen (15) days to file a reply and apologized for the omission, asserting that his action was in good faith.
He maintained that his dismissal of the criminal cases was based on a careful evaluation of the evidence and that even the inclusion of the PSC’s reply would not have altered his decision.
Judge Ros denied any malicious or partial conduct, emphasizing his policy of promptly addressing motions for reconsideration.

The OCA recommended the dismissal of the administrative complaint on the ground of lack of merit, particularly noting that:

The rapid disposition of a case is not a violation in itself, given that judges may decide cases with dispatch based on their assessment.
Although there was a procedural lapse in failing to await the PSC’s reply, there was no evidence of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.
The correctness of the judge's evaluation is inherently judicial in nature and not properly subject to administrative scrutiny.

Whether or not Judge Reynaldo G. Ros is liable for violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Specifically, whether his actions violated Canon 2, which requires judges to avoid both impropriety and the appearance thereof in all activities.
Whether his conduct amounted to a breach of Canon 3, which mandates that judges perform their official duties with impartiality, honesty, and diligence.
Whether the procedural lapses, such as not waiting for the PSC’s reply, reflect partiality or bias that compromises public confidence in the judiciary.