A.M. No. 01-34-CA-J - Avilla vs. Reyes, Jr.

A verified complaint was filed on February 1, 2001, before the Court of Appeals.
The complaint charged Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. with violating Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct for allegedly failing “to resolve their petition with dispatch.”
The complaint is connected to an earlier mandamus case filed against high-ranking officials of the Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC) and the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA) concerning disciplinary actions taken against cadets following the death of Cadet Dominante Tunac due to alleged hazing activities.
Complainants, representing members of Class 2001 and Class 2002 of the PNPA, claimed that the orders suspending, dismissing, or otherwise disciplining cadets threatened their educational progress and potential graduation.

The petition was filed on September 19, 2000 and raffled to the Second Division on September 20, 2000, with respondent assigned as the ponente.
Respondent allegedly delayed acting on the petition until the complainants filed a motion to set the case for oral arguments.
Subsequent motions—including a reiterative motion on December 14, 2000 for the immediate issuance of a temporary restraining order/writ of mandatory injunction, and later, a motion for the respondent’s inhibition on January 3, 2001—further highlighted the complainants’ frustration regarding the time taken for resolution.

The complainants contended that the inaction, despite clear urgency, constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct’s mandate that a judge must “administer justice impartially and without delay.”
Earlier judicial action related to the same dispute had been initiated in the Regional Trial Court of Trece Martires City but dismissed without prejudice for lack of jurisdiction.

The case was filed in the Court of Appeals and raffled to respondent as ponente.

October 10 – Complainants filed a motion for oral arguments.
October 18 – A motion required respondent’s comment along with the involvement of other government representatives.
October 27 – A resolution granting the motion for oral arguments was issued.

November 6 – Oral arguments were presented by both parties.
November 7 – Both parties agreed to submit their respective comments within a ten-day period.
November 16 – The Office of the Solicitor General filed its comments on behalf of the public respondents.
November 20 – The rollo of the case was forwarded to respondent’s office for decision writing.
November 27 – Respondent allegedly completed a draft decision, which was then circulated to the division.
November 28 – Copies of the draft decision were sent to the other members of the division; a marginal note from Justice Cancio Garcia suggested further discussion.

December 4 – Associate Justice Romeo A. Brawner inhibited himself from the case, necessitating the appointment of a replacement.
December 6 – Justice Bienvenido L. Reyes was appointed to replace Justice Brawner.
January 3, 2001 – Complainants filed a motion for the inhibition of respondent, alleging that the petitioner’s delay was unacceptable.
January 19, 2001 – Respondent inhibited himself from the case.

Upon receipt of the case rollo, he immediately studied the petition and identified technical defects.
A draft decision was prepared as early as November 27, 2000, and then circulated among his colleagues for review, which is a normal feature of the appellate process.
The delay was not due to his inaction but due to the inherent required consultations within the collegiate appellate system.

Respondent further maintained that the nature of the case—specifically the request for a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction (which requires a clear, undisputed case)—necessitated the careful review and internal deliberations that resulted in the observed delay.

Whether Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. violated Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by failing to act with dispatch in resolving the petition.

Did the period taken from the initial filing and assignment of the case to the circulation of a draft decision constitute an unreasonable delay?
Can the delay be attributed to the internal procedures and collegial process of the Court of Appeals rather than to any personal inaction or malfeasance on the part of the respondent?
Whether the alleged delay jeopardized the right of the complainants to maintain their studies and graduate on time.