A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601 - Sibayan-Joaquin vs. Javellana

Eliezer A. Sibayan-Joaquin, on behalf of Andersons Group, Inc., filed a complaint-affidavit on 17 September 1999.
The complaint charged Judge Roberto S. Javellana, then acting presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Branch 57, with:

The complaint was linked to Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 (People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Tan y Salazar), where the accused had been acquitted in a decision rendered on 16 July 1999.

Complainant alleged that the decision in Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 was rendered only on the tenth month after submission for decision, exceeding the ninety-day reglementary period mandated by law.
It was charged that both the judge and his clerk were absent during the promulgation of the decision, in violation of Section 6, Rule 120 of the Rules of Court.
Complainant noted the respondent judge’s frequent association with Attorney Vic Agravante, counsel for the accused:

Judge Javellana admitted that the decision in Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 was rendered beyond the prescribed ninety-day period.
He attributed the delay to:

A voluminous workload caused by handling cases in two salas (his original station, RTC Branch 59, and RTC Branch 57).
His recurring health problems, specifically hypertension, which resulted in frequent leave requests.

The actual promulgation was executed by Atty. Tarjata Ignalaga, Clerk of Court VI.
The process involved the presence of the accused, his counsel, the Provincial Prosecutor, and a private prosecutor.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the matter and, in its report dated 09 September 2000, recommended an investigation to allow both parties to substantiate their claims.
On 23 October 2000, the court adopted the OCA’s recommendation and assigned the case to Associate Justice Bernardo Abesamis of the Court of Appeals.
Justice Abesamis’ Report (dated 25 May 2001) found:

The decision in Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 was indeed rendered beyond the ninety-day period.
There was no irregularity in the actual promulgation of the decision.
No gross ignorance of law was committed by the respondent.
The error or mistake must be gross, malicious, deliberate, or in bad faith to warrant full disciplinary action, and a mere error of judgment would not suffice.
The judge’s close association with Attorney Agravante, however, did amount to impropriety.

Whether Judge Javellana’s delay in rendering the decision in Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 constitutes a violation of the prescribed ninety-day reglementary period.
Whether the promulgation process of the decision was irregular or defective in any procedural or substantive manner.
Whether the judge demonstrated gross ignorance of the law in the management of the case and in his overall conduct.
Whether his close personal association with Attorney Vic Agravante, despite being frequent and visible, amounted to an appearance of impropriety that could undermine public confidence in the judiciary.
What appropriate disciplinary measures should be imposed on a judge who fails to comply with judicial deadlines and ethical standards.