Case Digest (A.M. No. 90-474)
Facts:
Clemencio C. Sabitsana, Jr. v. Judge Adriano R. Villamor, Jr., A. M. No. RTJ-90-474, October 04, 1991, Supreme Court En Banc, Per Curiam.Complainant Atty. Clemencio Sabitsana, Jr. filed an Affidavit-Complaint dated March 7, 1990, charging respondent Judge Adriano R. Villamor of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Naval, Leyte, with falsification of his monthly Certificates of Service by falsely representing that he had resolved cases within the ninety-day period required under the Judiciary Act of 1948, Section 5, when, complainant alleged, several cases had been undecided since as early as March 1985.
On August 7, 1990 the Court directed Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad to make an on-the-spot audit of respondent’s sala; Bernad’s October 2, 1990 report found 87 cases undecided beyond the 90-day reglementary period as of July 3, 1990 (6 criminal with prisoners, 36 criminal without prisoners, and 45 civil cases), and further reported that records of two criminal and twelve civil cases were missing while six criminal records were acknowledged by respondent to have been in his possession. Bernad also described the courthouse as dilapidated and lacking dignity.
On October 31, 1990 Complainant furnished an affidavit of Municipal Trial Court Judge Dulcisimo Pitao alleging that respondent had intervened in Criminal Case No. 959 pending before Judge Pitao; the Court treated this as a supplemental charge of undue interest. On November 23, 1990 Complainant listed seven more cases submitted for decision as early as April 1986 that remained unresolved. Respondent’s Comment of December 20, 1990 characterized the administrative complaint as harassment, asserted he had complied with the 90-day rule since February 1, 1990 (when the continuous trial system was required), attributed earlier delays to incomplete transcripts, and maintained that he did not prepare the monthly Certificates of Service but only signed them.
By Resolution of April 18, 1991 the Court (1) referred the supplemental charge of undue interest to Associate Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr. of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and recommendation; (2) ordered respondent to decide with dispatch cases unresolved beyond 90 days; and (3) required respondent to inform the Court of steps taken to retrieve lost records and to place his records in order. Respondent failed to comply with those directives; follow-up correspondence by Complainant in July 1991 reiterated continuing unresolved cases.
Judge Martin’s investigative report (filed August 9, 1991) found the undue-interest imputation sufficiently substantiated and recommended a P10,000 fine. The report detailed respondent’s handwritten note dated August 19, 1987 on his letterhead to Judge Pitao (delivered by the accused’s wife), referencing a long-pending theft case and warning about a “Big Man Egane,” and urging the addressee to “hear and decide” or remand. Judge Pitao later convicted the accused on August 25, 1988; the records were elevated to respondent’s branch and docketed December 5, 1988. Respondent promulgated the acquittal on December 9, 1988 even though the record showed that no notice had been given to parties of receipt of the entire record to enable memoranda under Rule 21 of the Interim Rules and Guidelines.
The Investigating Justice found that respondent failed to exercise due care, created the appearance of impropriety, improperly sought to influence the trial judge, and decided an appealed case without assuring compliance with Rule 21. The Deputy Cour...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent committed falsification, inexcusable negligence and gross inefficiency in his administration of cases and records in violation of his duties as a judge?
- Whether respondent exercised undue interest and improperly interfered in a pending criminal case before a subordinate court, constituting serious misconduct?
- Whether dismissal from service with forfeiture of accrued retirement benefits and prohibition from re...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)