G.R. No. 187552-53 - Shangri-La Properties, Inc. vs. BF Corp.

Hortencia R. Cayabyab, acting as a private complainant, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Irineo P. Pangilinan, Jr.
The complaint was filed before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) alleging three main offenses:

The case, titled People of the Philippines v. Maria Melissa Cayabyab y Robles, involved an accusation of perjury.
Cayabyab charged her adopted daughter (the accused) with executing an affidavit of loss for Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. 92191, falsely stating that the owner’s duplicate copy was missing even though it was actually in Cayabyab’s possession.

The promulgation of the judgment in Criminal Case No. 10-5530 was originally scheduled for July 28, 2016.
Despite no request for an extension from Judge Pangilinan, the decision was rescheduled three times.
The final decision was handed down on October 20, 2016, which was four months after the case was submitted, exceeding the prescribed period.

In his decision, Judge Pangilinan found that the accused had deliberately executed the affidavit of loss with full knowledge that the TCT was not lost, thereby constituting a willful falsehood.
However, he acquitted the accused on the basis that her false statement was made without malice, noting that as the registered owner she could still transact the sale of the property.
Later, this decision was reversed and set aside by Judge Irin Zenaida S. Buan of RTC, Branch 56, on the ground of grave abuse of discretion.

Cayabyab alleged that Judge Pangilinan’s decision was affected by bias due to his affiliation with the same church as the accused and the intervention of a pastor from that congregation.
It was also noted that Cayabyab did not file a motion for the judge’s inhibition despite her doubts about his impartiality.

The judge maintained that the complaint was malicious, baseless, and an attempt at harassment following the unfavorable outcome in Criminal Case No. 10-5530.
He denied any undue delay, asserting that the case’s promulgation was within the 90-day period prescribed by law (with the original scheduling on June 16, 2016, and reset on July 28, 2016).
He explained that the delay was due to his efforts to reconcile the parties in pending suits and denied any personal acquaintance with the accused, dismissing the allegation of bias linked to church affiliation.

The OCA found sufficient merit regarding the claim of undue delay, noting that the promulgation on October 20, 2016, came well after the case’s submission on June 16, 2016.
The judge’s explanation for seeking an amicable settlement was deemed untenable under the circumstances of a criminal case affecting public interest.
While recommending disciplinary measures for undue delay, the OCA suggested a reprimand due to the judge’s first offense in this regard; however, it recommended dropping the charges for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment and gross ignorance of the law, as there was insufficient evidence of malice or bad faith.

Undue delay in rendering the decision in Criminal Case No. 10-5530, given that the decision was promulgated four months after submission, contrary to constitutional and judicial norms.
Knowingly rendering an unjust judgment by acquitting the accused despite findings of a deliberate falsehood.
Exhibiting gross ignorance of the law in his decision, particularly in light of established jurisprudence and statutory mandates.