A.M. No. RTJ-12-2317 - Bangalan vs. Turgano

Atty. Felino U. Bangalan, serving as counsel in Civil Case No. 11140-15 (Rosalinda Ver-Fajardo v. Jimmy Espejo), filed a complaint on February 5, 2010, against Judge Benjamin D. Turgano of RTC Branch 15, Laoag City.
The complaint alleged multiple instances of judicial misconduct, namely undue delay in rendering decisions, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and partiality.

The case was filed on November 13, 1996, and was raffled to Judge Turgano as sala (i.e., when he was assigned the case).
The case was submitted for decision on May 4, 2007, but the decision was rendered only on August 8, 2008 — a delay of more than 15 months, significantly exceeding the 90-day period mandated by Article VIII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.
Additionally, the Notice of Appeal and the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, filed in October 2008, were not resolved until September 2, 2009, indicating another prolonged period of delay.

Complainant charged that Judge Turgano was dishonest by declaring in his Certificate of Service that there were no unresolved motions pending within the reglementary period, contrary to the facts.
The judge was also accused of gross ignorance of the law for reversing his earlier decision dated September 2, 2009, by issuing a new order on November 12, 2009.

In the November 12 order, Judge Turgano relied on the doctrine established in Universal Far East Corporation v. Court of Appeals.
This reliance was characterized as an improper and obsolete application of legal doctrine which supposedly favored the interests of the opposing party.

Judge Turgano contended that he reversed his September 2, 2009, order pursuant to Section 2, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court.
He argued that any errors in judgment should have been addressed through the proper judicial remedy, namely, the filing of a petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals.
The judge attributed his delay in rendering decisions and resolving motions to personal hardships:

Suffering from transient ischemic attacks and pulmonary problems.
Experiencing the deaths of his father (November 16, 2007) and his brother in early 2008.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted that while these reasons were sound, they did not justify the failure to request an extension to the 90-day reglementary period.

The OCA verified the validity of the complainant’s charges regarding the undue delay.
It observed that the issues raised by the complainant — particularly on the reversal of the order — pertained to judicial error best remedied through judicial channels and not through administrative sanctions.
Complainant had also filed a Petition for Certiorari (CA-G.R. SP No. 111883) with the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the September 2, 2009, decision, thereby affirming that judicial remedies were in place for addressing errors in judgment.

Whether Judge Turgano’s delay in rendering the decision on Civil Case No. 11140-15, as well as in resolving subsequent motions, violated the constitutional mandate of a 90-day reglementary period.
Whether the delay was sufficiently mitigated by the personal hardships cited by the judge.

Whether the reversal of the September 2, 2009, decision, and the reliance on an allegedly obsolete legal doctrine amount to gross ignorance of the law and partiality.
Whether the declaration in the Certificate of Service regarding pending motions constitutes dishonesty.

Whether the administrative proceedings initiated by the complainant were the proper remedy for addressing errors in judicial discretion.
Whether the proper judicial remedy (petition for certiorari) was bypassed in favor of an administrative sanction.