Title
Bulan vs. Cardenas
Case
A.M. No. 100-MJ
Decision Date
Dec 29, 1980
Judge Cardenas dismissed for gross neglect, violating adjournment rules, and surrendering judicial independence after a 10-year trial delay influenced by a local politician.

Case Summary (G.R. No. L-38975)

Allegations of Delay

Candido Bulan filed a complaint against Judge Cardenas alleging that the trial of Criminal Case No. 78, initiated on September 26, 1962, was significantly delayed. Bulan asserted that the trial had been postponed for nearly ten years despite repeated requests for settings by both him and the accused. In an affidavit dated January 30, 1973, Judge Cardenas explained that he had been pressured to grant these postponements due to appeals made by Bulan and the then Mayor of Tuao, Francisco Mamba, asserting that the Mayor's influence made it difficult to resist such requests.

Investigation Findings

The case was investigated, leading to a report from Judge Jesus B. Ruiz, which indicated that Judge Cardenas had repeatedly scheduled hearings, but they were postponed primarily at the request of Bulan or the accused. Ruiz’s findings pointed out that both Bulan and the special counsel failed to actively seek hearings, although the judge had the authority to dismiss the case for lack of prosecution. Additionally, it was noted that Bulan was also facing charges in a separate case for Multiple Murder, contributing further to the case's delay.

Legal Standards and Violations

Justice Manuel Barcelona’s memorandum noted that Judge Cardenas had contravened Section 3 of Rule 22 of the Revised Rules of Court regarding adjournments and postponements, by allowing prolonged delays without proper justification or written authorization. The rule mandates that court adjournments cannot exceed specified time limits unless sanctioned by the Chief Justice, and any breach of this rule could signify negligence or misconduct in the judge's duties.

Conclusion of Proceedings

The en banc Court subsequently convened on July 1, 1975, to hear the case; however, neither party appeared in court. Following this absence, the case was submitted for decision, leading to the conclusion that the long-standing delays constituted a willful disregard for judicial obligations and a breach of duty by the respondent judge. Furthermore, the Court emphasized that delays in criminal proceedings are det

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.