A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454 - Hilario vs. Concepcion

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454)
Advanced

Facts:

Nature of the complaint before the OCA

A sworn letter-complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on November 27, 1997 by Atty. Nescito C. Hilario against Judge Crisanto C. Concepcion, Executive Judge of the RTC under his administrative supervision.
The complaint alleged inefficiency and grave abuse of discretion arising from the manner in which respondent acted on a motion to inhibit of an MTC judge, with specific reference to a time lapse and to respondent’s overruling of the inhibition.

Antecedent proceedings in the MTC involving Judge Quilantang’s voluntary inhibition

The pending case before the MTC of Obando, Bulacan was Criminal Case No. 4597 entitled People vs. SPO1 Froilan Bautista for perjury.
On January 21, 1997, complainant filed a Motion to Inhibit Judge Quilantang because he was allegedly personally involved in the immoral and illegal dismissal of other criminal cases (for grave threats and illegal possession of firearm) involving a certain Reynaldo Marquez.
Complainant asserted that the private complainant in those cases was his client, Jonathan de la Cruz, and that those cases were directly connected with the perjury case against SPO1 Bautista in which de la Cruz was also the private complainant.
While the Motion to Inhibit was being heard, Judge Quilantang questioned complainant’s appearance as private prosecutor and asked the public prosecutor (Assistant Public Prosecutor Emily A. Bajar) whether complainant was entitled to act as private prosecutor.
On February 27, 1997, APP Bajar filed a comment dated February 26, 1997 upholding complainant’s appearance as private prosecutor.
On March 3, 1997, Judge Quilantang issued a resolution:

Inhibiting himself from further hearing the case; and
Declaring that complainant was not qualified to appear as private prosecutor, and directing his clerk to send a copy of the resolution to the Office of the Executive Judge of the RTC, Malolos, Bulacan, for the designation of another judge to hear and decide the case.

The resolution of Judge Quilantang was sent to Executive Judge Concepcion on March 12, 1997.

Alleged delay in action by respondent Executive Judge Concepcion on the inhibition

Before complainant left for the United States and Canada on April 1, 1997, he followed up the raffle of the case with the Office of Judge Concepcion.
Complainant was informed by Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Teodulo C. Cruz that no action had yet been taken and that the case had not yet been raffled.
After complainant’s return on May 13, 1997, he personally followed up the matter at least five (5) times between May and August 1997, but his efforts were allegedly unavailing because Atty. Cruz kept stating that respondent was already working on it, while the case was still not raffled despite the lapse of five (5) months.
In the meantime, the clerk of court of the MTC sent a follow-up letter dated July 10, 1997 by personal service, received by the Office of Judge Concepcion on July 14, 1997.
On September 8, 1997, complainant was shown an unsigned original copy of respondent’s letter to Judge Quilantang dated July 4, 1997; Atty. Cruz asked to have it signed, and after about two (2) minutes he received a copy of the signed letter.
Respondent’s letter to Judge Quilantang denied the voluntary inhibition and ordered him to continue:

It stated that the voluntary inhibition for “loftier motive and principle” was not among the instances allowed by Rule 137 of the Rules of Court; and
It concluded: “WHEREFORE, your voluntary inhibition as the presiding judge of the MTC Obando is hereby DENIED, ordering you to proceed trying the subject criminal case.”

Procedural steps in the administrative case against respondent

On April 29, 1998, Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo required Judge Concepcion to comment on the complaint.
In compliance, respondent submitted his Comment in which he denied the accusations and provided an explanation of the time lapse and of the legal basis of his action.

Respondent’s Comment and his factual defenses

Respondent asserted that even if there was delay, the complaint’s characterization was inaccurate:

He stated that from Judge Quilantang’s voluntary inhibition on March 3, 1997 to respondent’s denial of the inhibition on July 4, 1997 was a period of four (4) months, not six (6) months.

Respondent explained that the inhibition order did not reach his desk sooner due to how it was processed:

He claimed that complainant’s theory ignored that the order had not reached respondent’s desk until it should have.
Respondent alleged that complainant followed up and communicated with Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Teodulo C. Cruz, but complainant did not verify with respondent himself whether respondent was already working on the matter.
Respondent highlighted that complainant admitted there was a momentary efficiency when complainant showed that it took only about two (2) minutes for respondent to act on the matter after it was brought into his chamber.
Respondent asserted that he had never met complainant or talked to him in person.

Respondent denied personal liability for the purported delay:

He said any delay caused by processing the order was not for him to explain.
He contended that the discussion of the matter occurred between complainant and Atty. Cruz without his knowledge or participation.

Respondent defended his denial of the voluntary inhibition:

He stated that Judge Quilantang’s resolution had already declared the stated ground of inhibition and had also addressed complainant’s standing to ask for the inhibition.
Respondent characterized Judge Quilantang’s subsequent inhibition as “surprising” and based on “loftier motive and principle.”
Respondent described his refusal to reassign the criminal case to another MTC judge as an act aligned with what he told Judge Quilantang: that the voluntary inhibition “for loftier motive and principle” was not among those instances allowed by Rule 137 of the Rules of Court.
Respondent asserted that as Executive Judge and court administrator for Bulacan, it was his incumbent duty to ensure reassignments within his area were allowed only on meritorious and justifiable grounds.
Respondent argued that he did not commit an abuse of discretion because complainant allegedly had no personality, business, or concern to interfere in an intra-court affair.

Recommendations and referral for investigation

In a Memorandum dated March 30, 1999, the OCA recommended that the parties be directed to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution based on the pleadings.
The OCA also recommended that respondent be held liable for inefficiency and that he be fined P3,000.
On July 29, 1999, respondent manifested a request for a thorough investigation before submission for decision.
The Court referred the case to Justice Eriberto U. Rosario of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation.

Investigating Justice’s Report of findings and recommendation

After conducting hearings and requiring memoranda, the investigating justice recommended that respondent be held administratively liable for inefficiency and fined P3,000.
The investigating justice’s factual determination on the time el...(Subscriber-Only)

Issues:

Whether Judge Concepcion was administratively liable for gross inefficiency due to delay in acting on Judge Quilantang’s voluntary inhibition order.
Whether the claimed delay could be excused on the ground of fault of respondent’s clerk of court.
Whether respondent committed grave abuse of discretion by overruling Judge

...(Subscriber-Only)

Unlock Full Case Digest

Supreme Court E-Library

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454)
Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454)
Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454) Concise Detailed

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454) Advanced

Facts:

Issues:

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454)
Concise Detailed

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454)
Advanced