A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248 - Angeles vs. Sempio Diy

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248)

Factual Background

The complaint arose from consolidated Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-62690 entitled “People of the Philippines v. Proclyn Pacay” and “People of the Philippines v. P/Insp. Roberto Ganias,” in which Judge Angeles identified herself as private complainant and alleged that Judge Sempio Diy unduly delayed the promulgation of the Joint Decision after the cases were submitted for resolution on 20 June 2008, and later delayed ruling on an Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed by convicted accused SPO1 Roberto C. Carino.

Complainant’s Allegations

Judge Angeles charged Judge Sempio Diy with violating the Constitution and various ethical canons and rules by rendering the Joint Decision only on 12 December 2008 after repeated postponements that, she insisted, exceeded the constitutionally prescribed period; by allegedly fabricating or failing to properly include extension requests and Supreme Court Resolutions in the case records; and by delaying action on accused Carino’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration for more than six months, which she supported with a Certification from the Branch Clerk of Court stating no court order directed the defense to file a reply.

Respondent’s Defense

Judge Sempio Diy denied bad faith and contended that she timely sought three successive extensions amounting to a total extension of ninety days reckoned from 18 September 2008, all of which were granted by this Court; that the first postponement was due to a medical consultation substantiated by a medical certificate; that the cases were voluminous and partly inherited from prior judges; and that the delay in resolving the Urgent Motion for Reconsideration resulted from granting the defense time to file a reply, a typographical error in the Order’s date, and temporary dislocation caused by death threats to her and court personnel, all of which she treated as inadvertence rather than malice.

Office of the Court Administrator’s Evaluation

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) examined the records and concluded that the requests for extension were timely filed and were granted by the Court, so that the Joint Decision was promulgated within the extended ninety-day period; the OCA found, however, that Judge Sempio Diy incurred delay in resolving accused Carino’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration and recommended re-docketing the matter as a regular administrative case with a fine of P2,000.00 and a stern warning.

Procedural History

The parties filed their pleadings, including respondent’s Comment, complainant’s Reply, respondent’s Rejoinder, and subsequent sur-replies. The OCA submitted its Report dated 7 May 2010, after which this Court reviewed the administrative complaint, the parties’ submissions, and the documents appended to the records, including the stenographic notes and Minutes of the January 29, 2009 hearing.

Issues Presented

The principal questions were whether Judge Sempio Diy committed unreasonable delay in promulgating the Joint Decision in the consolidated criminal cases in violation of Section 15 (1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution and the judicial canons, and whether she unduly delayed resolving accused Carino’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration, thereby breaching Rule 3.05, Canon 3 and other ethical mandates.

Supreme Court’s Findings as to Promulgation Delay

After reviewing the submitted extension letters and this Court’s Resolutions of November 24, 2008 and February 16, 2009, the Court found that Judge Sempio Diy timely requested three successive extensions and that the Court granted a total extension of ninety days from 18 September 2008; consequently the Joint Decision promulgated on 12 December 2008 was within the authorized period and the charge of dishonesty or slothful conduct in that respect lacked sufficient proof.

Supreme Court’s Findings as to Delay on Motion for Reconsideration

The Court concluded, however, that Judge Sempio Diy unduly delayed action on accused Carino’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration. The stenographic notes and Minutes of the January 29, 2009 hearing established that the defense was given ten days to file a reply, making the reglementary period run from February 8, 2009, yet the matter was only submitted for resolution on July 30, 2009 and resolved on August 24, 2009. The Court held that a judge cannot prolong the period for resolving incidents beyond the lawfully authorized time and that the three-month reglementary period for resolving motions cannot be excused by inadvertence or the receipt of death threats when the delay had already become excessive.

Legal Basis and Reasoning

The Court relied on Section 15 (1) and (2), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution, which prescribes the periods for deciding cases and matters; Rule 3.05, Canon 3 and Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which require prompt disposition of court business and reasonable promptness in performance of judicial duties; and prior decisions, including Acuzar v. Ocampo, Ricolcol v. Judge Camarista, and Gordon v. Judge Lilagan, to underscore the judge’s duty to maintain docket control, conduct continuous inventory of cases, and keep an effective system of record management so that no case is overlooked or languishes beyond the reglementary periods. The Court observed that respondent’s failure stemmed from inadvertence and deficiencies in case management rather than malice.

Sanction and Disposition

Treating the adm

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-10-2248)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Complainant Judge Adoracion G. Angeles filed an administrative complaint for disbarment and dismissal from the judiciary against Respondent Judge Maria Elisa Sempio Diy.
The complaint arose from consolidated Criminal Case Nos. Q-95-61294 and Q-95-62690, titled People of the Philippines v. Proclyn Pacay and People of the Philippines v. P/Insp. Roberto Ganias.
The Office of the Court Administrator prepared a Report dated May 7, 2010 evaluating the complaint and recommending administrative action.
The matter was docketed before this Court as an administrative case and was treated as a disciplinary proceeding under A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC.
The Court received pleadings including the Complaint, respondent’s Comment, Reply, Rejoinder, Sur-Rejoinder, and the OCA Report.

Key Factual Allegations

Complainant alleged that the subject cases were submitted for decision by order dated June 20, 2008 with initial promulgation set for September 11, 2008.
Complainant alleged successive cancellations and resets of promulgation dates to September 17, October 17, November 14, and finally December 12, 2008, and contended that these caused a lapse of six months from submission to promulgation.
Complainant alleged that the case records contained no requests for extension nor Supreme Court Resolutions granting extensions and therefore that respondent fabricated or falsified documents.
Complainant alleged further delay concerning accused SPO1 Roberto C. Carino’s Urgent Motion for Reconsideration filed January 5, 2009 and opposed January 14, 2009, which the trial court submitted for resolution only on July 30, 2009 and resolved on August 24, 2009.
Complainant attached a Certification by Benedict S. Sta. Cruz, Branch Clerk of Court, attesting to the absence of any order directing the defense to file a reply to the prosecution’s Opposition.
Complainant charged respondent with violations of Section 15 (1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution, provisions of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Code of Professional Responsibility, Republic Act No. 6713, falsification of official documents, and dishonesty.

Parties' Contentions

Complainant contended that respondent’s excuses for resetting promulgation dates were untrue or insufficient and that respondent purposely delayed resolution to the prejudice of the prosecution.
Complainant contended that the July 30, 2009 Order bore a date typed in a different font and suggested a substituted or snowpaked date.
Respondent denied the material allegations and asserted that the complaint was baseless and motivated by harassment.
Respondent asserted that she inherited voluminous records, that she timely sought three successive extensions, that she submitted supporting medical and travel explanations, and that the Supreme Court granted the requested extensions.
Respondent asserted that the delay in acting on accused Carino’s motion resulted from granting the defense time to file a reply after the January 29, 2009 hearing and from extraordinary disturbances including death threats to her and court personnel.

OCA Findings

The OCA found that Respondent timely filed seasonable requests for extensions and that this Court granted a total extension of ninety days from September 18,