A.M. No. 100-MJ - Bulan vs. Cardenas

Candido Bulan, a complaining witness in People vs. Nemesio Palmea for Serious Physical Injuries (Criminal Case No. 78 filed on September 26, 1962), filed an administrative complaint against Judge Teofilo B. Cardenas of the Municipal Court of Tuao, Cagayan.
The complaint pertained to the undue delay in trying the criminal case, which had dragged on for nearly ten years.

The records show that the case was filed on September 26, 1962, and was pending for over a decade without a resolution.
Multiple postponements occurred:

On several occasions, Candido Bulan, either by himself or accompanied by Mayor Francisco Mamba, visited Judge Cardenas at his residence seeking postponements of the hearing.
The accused, Nemesio Palmea, similarly requested postponements due to his lack of counsel.
The local mayor exerted significant pressure on the judge, asserting his influential position and compelling Judge Cardenas to defer the hearing indefinitely.

He repeatedly postponed hearings upon request from both the complainant and the accused.
He cited excuses such as the late arrival of Candido Bulan’s counsel or the absence of counsel for the accused.

He disclosed that the influential Mayor Francisco Mamba also imposed demands on him, making it “dangerous to resist” postponement requests.
Judge Cardenas acknowledged that:

Despite having the power to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution interest, he refrained from doing so based on a prior reprimand from the Department of Justice concerning another case.
The delay was further compounded by the disappearance of Candido Bulan—who later was implicated as a fugitive when allegedly charged in Criminal Case No. 142 for multiple murder.

Judge Jesus B. Ruiz, the investigating judge from the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, reported that:

The scheduling of hearings (set five times) was repeatedly postponed at the request of Candido Bulan and, on one occasion, at the request of the accused.
Neither the complainant nor his legal representative made any move to secure a hearing.
Judge Cardenas could have dismissed the case but chose not to out of fear due to prior administrative sanctions.
The complainant’s own actions substantially contributed to the delay.

Former Judicial Consultant Justice Manuel Barcelona, however, in his memorandum dated March 21, 1975, criticized Judge Cardenas for:

Violating Section 3 of Rule 22 of the Revised Rules of Court regarding adjournments and postponements.
Surrendering the independence of his office by succumbing to local political pressures, thereby warranting his dismissal from judicial service.

The en banc session of the Supreme Court, which was set for July 1, 1975, witnessed non-appearance of both the complainant and Judge Cardenas.
The case was submitted for decision, leading to divergent opinions:

The majority opinion condemned the prolonged delay (for nearly ten years) as a flagrant disregard for the right to a speedy trial.
It held that the delay, compounded by external pressure from a local influential mayor, rendered the judge unfit to continue in office.
Conversely, a concurring opinion by Justice De Castro argued that, given the mitigating circumstances, the penalty of dismissal was excessively harsh and recommended a one-year suspension without pay.

Whether Judge Teofilo B. Cardenas, by repeatedly postponing the trial of Criminal Case No. 78 over a period of almost ten years, violated the prescribed rules regarding adjournments/postponements under Section 3, Rule 22 of the Revised Rules of Court.

Whether the undue delay in the trial compromised the complainant’s right to speedy trial and the overall administration of justice.

Whether Judge Cardenas’ acceptance of repeated postponement requests, under pressure from both the complainant and local political influences (notably Mayor Francisco Mamba), constituted a surrender of judicial independence.

Whether the administrative sanction of dismissal was appropriate given the facts of the case or whether a lighter sanction would be more suitable.