Title
Ferdez vs. Hamoy
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1821
Decision Date
Aug 12, 2004
Judge Jaime T. Hamoy is sanctioned with a P40,000 fine and warned of potential suspension or dismissal for gross inefficiency and violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct due to a decade-long delay in rendering judgments on two civil cases.
Font Size

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-04-1821)

Facts:

  • Jose E. Fernandez filed an administrative complaint against Judge Jaime T. Hamoy on August 12, 2004.
  • The complaint arose from Judge Hamoy's failure to render judgment in two civil cases:
    • Civil Case No. 3645: Hadji Adil Musahari vs. Shop-O-Rama
    • Civil Case No. 2744: Philippine International Development, Inc. vs. Associate Citizens Bank
  • Both cases were initially filed in Zamboanga City, Branch 15, where Judge Hamoy presided.
  • Over ten years passed without a judgment in these cases.
  • After his transfer to Caloocan City, Fernandez discovered that the records of the unresolved cases were with Judge Hamoy.
  • On January 7, 1997, Fernandez sought assistance from the Court Administrator for a speedy resolution.
  • Judge Hamoy failed to respond to the Court Administrator's directives.
  • Eventually, he attributed the delay to misplaced records and a congested docket but claimed to have resolved both cases in 2003.
  • The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of P40,000 for his inaction, warning of potential severe penalties for further delays.
  • The Supreme Court found Judge Hamoy administratively liable for gross inefficiency, dereliction of duty, and violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • Yes, Judge Jaime T. Hamoy committed abuse of authority and dereliction of duty by failing to decide the cases within the reglementary period.
  • The Supreme Court deemed the recommended penalty of a fine of P40,000 insufficient and imposed the supreme penalty of dismissal from service.
  • ...(Unlock)

Ratio:

  • The Supreme Court highlighted the essential duty of judges to ensure prompt and efficient justice administration.
  • Judge Hamoy's failure to render decisions in the civil cases for over thirteen years constituted gross inefficiency and dereliction of duty, violating Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
  • The excuses of misplaced records and a congested docket were deemed inadequate, as judges are responsible for managing their court personnel and proceedings.
  • The...continue reading

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.

© 2024 Jur.ph. All rights reserved.