Case Digest (Adm. Case No. 238-J)
Facts:
Rafael S. Dadivas, Jr. v. Hon. Cesar Kintanar, Adm. Case No. 238-J, November 29, 1972, the Supreme Court En Banc, Ruiz Castro, J., writing for the Court. Complainant Rafael S. Dadivas, Jr. filed an administrative complaint with the Supreme Court on March 16, 1972 accusing respondent Cesar Kintanar, then Presiding Judge of Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, of grave misconduct and serious inefficiency; he additionally urged interim relief to restrain the respondent from further action in Civil Case No. 9343 and to recommend suspension of the respondent’s retirement gratuity and other benefits.On April 10, 1970 Dadivas had filed Civil Case No. 9343 for damages against Elizalde International (Phil.), Inc. and its officers; by raffle the case was assigned to Judge Kintanar. Dadivas alleged a series of prejudicial acts by Kintanar in the handling of that civil case: lumping pre-trial and trial; repeatedly granting postponements despite defendant non-appearance; ordering plaintiff to proceed without a mandatory pre-trial; interrupting the plaintiff’s testimony and suspending proceedings to enable the defense to take depositions; leaving Bacolod on regular session days (allegedly in violation of a Department of Justice circular) thereby frustrating urgent motions; permitting depositions by written interrogatories while leaving other motions undecided; suspending cross-examination for a defense counsel’s travel; allowing alterations/markings on defense documents without motion or notice; granting postponements to allow sur-rebuttal while failing to act on the complainant’s pending motions; and lax supervision of court personnel including failure to order transcription of stenographic notes. Dadivas also alleged that Kintanar dozed during trials and showed partiality in favor of defendants.
Respondent filed an answer dated April 22, 1972 denying the allegations, characterizing the complaint as harassment and explaining the challenged acts: he said postponements were granted on motions with the complainant’s concurrence; a pre-trial was in fact conducted; he went on sick leave November 23–26, 1970 (with intervening days being Sunday and a holiday), and the Rules of Court permit depositions by written interrogatories; the alleged signature on an unmarked deposition reflected receipt only; he did take notes and had appellate affirmances and a local lawyers’ league commendation. Respondent also had reached compulsory retirement on April 24, 1972 and, per a Department of Justice certification dated November 24, 1972, had received his retirement gratuity and terminal leave pay.
By resolution of June 27, 1972 the Court referred the complaint to Court of Appeals Justice Emilio Gancayco for investigation, report and recommendation. Justice Gancayco’s report, filed November 13, 1972, found no clear evidence to substantiate grave misconduct or serious inefficiency and recommended dismissal. The investigator’s factual findings included that a pre-trial had been conducted (though no transcript was offered), that continuances were often sought by defense counsel and at times concurred in by the complainant, that postponements and reschedulings had the complainant’s acquiescence, that the respondent properly allowed depositions by written interrogatories under the Rules of Court, and that delays were in part attributable to the complainant’s filing of a certiorari petition which held proceedings in abeyance. T...(Pro-only)
Issues:
- Were the charges of grave misconduct against Judge Cesar Kintanar substantiated by clear evidence?
- Were the charges of serious inefficiency against Judge Cesar Kintanar substantiated by clear evidence?
- Was interim relief (restraint from acting in Civil Case No. 9343 and suspension of retireme...(Pro-only)
Ruling:
- (Pro-only)
Ratio:
- (Pro-only)
Doctrine:
- (Pro-only)