Title
Cadauan vs. Alivia
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1595
Decision Date
Oct 24, 2000
Judge Artemio Alivia fined P5,000 for gross inefficiency after failing to decide a partition case within 90 days; dishonesty charge unproven.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-00-1595)

Facts:

  1. Parties Involved:

    • Complainants: Luz Cadauan and Claro Cadauan (plaintiff and defendant, respectively, in Special Civil Action No. Br. 19-83 for Partition with Liquidation).
    • Respondent: Judge Artemio R. Alivia, Regional Trial Court of Cauayan, Isabela, Branch 19.
  2. Nature of the Case:

    • The case involved a civil action for partition with liquidation, entitled "Luz Cadauan vs. Angel Cadauan, Jesus Cadauan, Julian Cadauan, Cely Cadauan, and Claro Cadauan."
    • The case was submitted for decision on October 21, 1998.
  3. Allegations Against Respondent Judge:

    • Complainants accused Judge Alivia of "Dishonesty, amounting to grave misconduct in office" for certifying that he had disposed of the case within 90 days when, in fact, the case remained undecided at the time of the complaint.
    • The delay allegedly deprived complainants of possession of the properties subject to the case.
  4. Respondent Judge's Defense:

    • Respondent admitted the delay but justified it due to his heavy workload as a presiding judge of a Special Crimes Court, handling cases involving heinous crimes.
    • He claimed priority was given to cases involving detention prisoners and heinous crimes.
    • He denied signing the certificate of service attached to the complaint.
  5. Case Resolution:

    • The civil case was eventually decided on September 9, 1999, almost 11 months after submission.
    • Respondent Judge retired on November 14, 1999.
  6. Procedural History:

    • The Court Administrator recommended a fine of P5,000.00 for gross inefficiency.
    • Complainants submitted the case for resolution, while respondent failed to file a manifestation despite notice.

Issue:

  1. Whether respondent Judge Artemio Alivia is administratively liable for failing to decide the civil case within the mandatory 90-day period.
  2. Whether respondent Judge committed dishonesty by certifying that he had disposed of the case within the reglementary period.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.