Case Summary (A.M. No. 01-34-CA-J)
Complaint Basis
The complainants alleged that Justice Reyes failed to resolve their petition with promptness, thus violating Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates judges to administer justice impartially and without delay. The basis of their complaint was the delay in resolving their petition filed on September 19, 2000, regarding disciplinary actions taken against members of PNPA Classes 2001 and 2002, following the death of a cadet due to hazing activities.
Delay Allegations and Respondent’s Defense
The complainants contended that there was an extensive delay from the time the petition was filed. Specifically, they asserted that respondent did not act on their petition until they had filed a motion to set the case for oral arguments. In contrast, respondent Reyes defended his actions by detailing the timeline of events and emphasizing the collegiate nature of the appellate court's decision-making process. He argued that he had promptly begun studying the case and that any delays were attributed to required procedural steps rather than negligence on his part.
Court's Findings on Delay
The court examined the sequence of events and documented actions within the timeline of September 14, 2000, through January 19, 2001. The analysis revealed that the respondent indeed engaged in the case in a timely manner and properly circulated the draft decision among other Justices for their input. The court found that while there were periods of inactivity, the timeline indicated a reasoned approach in addressing the complexities of the case.
Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases
The court affirmed that the right to a speedy disposition of a case is not an absolute guarantee against all delays but must be evaluated with consideration for the reasons behind the delay, the actions of the parties involved, and any resulting prejudice. The court concluded that the one-and-a-half-month period taken for decision preparation was not unreasonable, particularly given the circumstances and the nature of the
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 01-34-CA-J)
Case Overview
- The case involves a verified complaint filed by Ariel Avilla, Wilbert Divina, Faith Eleonor Fabio, Jenny Dela Cruz, Randy Moratalla, Eliseo V. Bernales, Joanne Enriquez, Crisostomo L. Ubac, and Ricardo Dalmacia against Associate Justice Andres B. Reyes, Jr. of the Court of Appeals.
- The complaint alleges a violation of Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, accusing the respondent of failing to resolve their petition with dispatch.
- The underlying matter pertains to a case for Mandamus with Damages and a request for a Temporary Restraining Order and/or Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction against several officials of the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA).
Background of the Case
- The complainants, along with 452 others, sought legal relief due to disciplinary actions imposed on cadets from Class 2001 and Class 2002 of the PNPA, following the death of Cadet Dominante Tunac, allegedly caused by hazing.
- The petition questioned the validity of the orders that suspended and dismissed cadets, claiming these actions jeopardized their studies and impending graduation.
- A similar case had previously been dismissed for lack of jurisdiction by a Regional Trial Court.
Allegations Against Respondent
- Complainants assert that from the filing of the petition on September 19, 2000, u