Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-12-2317)
Allegations Against the Respondent
The complaint was lodged on February 5, 2010, noting undue delay in decision-making, where the case was submitted for decision on May 4, 2007, and only resolved on August 8, 2008, significantly beyond the mandated 90-day period stated in Article VIII, Section 15 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. Furthermore, resolutions on the Notice of Appeal and Motion for Execution Pending Appeal were delayed until September 2, 2009, almost a year after being filed.
Claims of Dishonesty and Ignorance of the Law
The complainant asserted that Judge Turgano lacked integrity by falsely declaring he had no unresolved motions during the reglementary period. Additionally, he accused the judge of gross ignorance when the judge reversed a previous order granting a motion for execution. The reversal was based on an outdated doctrine, demonstrating alleged partiality towards the opposing party's interests.
Respondent’s Defense
In response, Judge Turgano contended that his actions adhered to the judicial rules, specifically referencing Section 2, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court, justifying the reversal of his previous order. He argued that matters of judicial error should be remedied through a petition for certiorari rather than administrative complaints. He also refuted allegations of partiality, asserting that his orders were justified based on available evidence and legal standards.
Health Issues and Circumstances for Delay
The respondent attributed the delay in handling cases to personal health struggles, specifically transient ischemic attacks, and familial bereavements affecting his judgments. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) confirmed that the complainant had previously pursued a certiorari petition that reinstated the judge's order granting the motion for execution.
Findings of the OCA
The OCA discovered that many claims made by the complainant related to the respondent’s judicial actions were misaligned with the proper judicial remedies available for errors in judgment. Although the OCA did not find substantial proof for the dishonesty claim, it recognized the failure of the respondent to meet the 90-day decision mandate and comply with Code of Judicial Conduct. However, they considered Turgano’s circumstances mitigating.
Judicial Precedents and Ruling
Referring to established
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. RTJ-12-2317)
Case Background
- Complainant Atty. Felino U. Bangalan filed a complaint against Respondent Judge Benjamin D. Turgano on February 5, 2010.
- The complaint charged the respondent with undue delay in rendering decisions, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and partiality.
- Complainant is the counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 11140-15, titled Rosalinda Ver-Fajardo v. Jimmy Espejo, which concerns ownership and recovery of possession.
Allegations of Undue Delay
- Civil Case No. 11140-15 was filed on November 13, 1996, and was assigned to Respondent Judge Turgano.
- The case was submitted for decision on May 4, 2007, but the decision was rendered on August 8, 2008, exceeding the required 90-day period mandated by Article VIII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution.
- The Notice of Appeal and Motion for Execution Pending Appeal filed in October 2008 were resolved nearly a year later, on September 2, 2009.
Charges of Dishonesty and Gross Ignorance of the Law
- Complainant accused the respondent of dishonesty for falsely declaring in his Certificate of Service that there were no unresolved motions within the reglementary period.
- Allegations of gross ignorance of the law arose when the respondent reversed his earlier dec