Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461)
Facts:
Ricardo Dela Cruz v. Hon. Herminia M. Pascua, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461, June 26, 2001, the Supreme Court Third Division, Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., writing for the Court. The complaint is an administrative action filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by Ricardo Dela Cruz (complainant), then a mayoralty candidate in Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, against Judge Herminia M. Pascua (respondent), Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 25, Tagudin, for alleged falsification of public document and for delay in disposing an election protest in violation of Section 17(1), Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure.On May 26, 1995, Dela Cruz filed an election protest against Mayor Jose Bunoan, Jr., docketed Sp. Proc. Case No. 0743‑T, before RTC Branch 25 presided by Judge Pascua. Intervenors Nena Ocana and Nelson Cuaresma filed a motion for intervention which Judge Pascua denied as filed out of time. The intervenors then filed a Petition by Appeal on Certiorari with the COMELEC (SPR No. 13‑95), which the COMELEC dismissed for lack of merit.
On August 28, 1995, Judge Pascua issued an order deferring the hearing of Sp. Proc. Case No. 0743‑T and stated that a Petition by Appeal on Certiorari had been filed with the Supreme Court; complainant later alleged this was false, as the intervenors’ petition had been filed with the COMELEC, not the Supreme Court. On December 26, 1995, Judge Pascua ordered the election protest archived, explaining she believed a petition was pending before the Supreme Court and thus the RTC could not act; this archival period lasted until she ordered the records retrieved on February 8, 1996. Complainant alleged the retrieval order was ante‑dated because his Motion to Retrieve was filed only on February 15, 1996.
The OCA referred the complaint to Judge Pascua for comment. In her comment she admitted an honest error in stating the intervenors had appealed to the Supreme Court, explained that intervenors had shown her a copy of a petition, and said the retrieval order was prepared on February 8, 1996 and mailed on February 13 (complainant received it Feb. 14; his counsel, Feb. 15), while the motion that was later filed bore a February 6 date but was actually filed on February 15. Complainant’s counsel later withdrew the election protest (letter dated December 22, 1997). Judge Pascua was compulsorily retired on September 18, 1998.
Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo reported (May 13, 1999) that Judge Pascua’s orders postponing hearings (Aug. 28–29, 1995) and directing archival (Dec. 26, 1995) produced a substantial period of lost time in the election protest’s resolution, that her reliance on intervenors’ representations was negligent, and that she should have ascertained whether any petition was actually pending before the Supreme Court. He found no proof of corrupt motive but concluded respondent was negligent and recommended a P10,000 fine to be deducted from her retirement benefits. The Court reviewed the records, agreed with the recommendation, found respondent guilty of inefficiency, and imposed the recommended fine.
Issues:
- Did Judge Pascua commit falsification of public document by ante‑dating the order retrieving the election protest from the archives?
- Did Judge Pascua’s actions constitute a violation of Section 17(1), Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules (undue delay) and manifest inefficiency warranting administrative discipline?
- What administrative sanction, if any, is appropriate?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)