SB-99-9-J - Canson vs. Garchitorena

Case Summary (SB-99-9-J)

Parties, Venue, and Applicable Standards

The administrative matter was resolved by the Supreme Court. The complaint charged respondents with violation of Section 7, P.D. No. 1606, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, and several provisions of the Canons of Judicial Conduct, including Rules 1.02, 2.01, 3.01, and 3.05. The complaint further alleged gross misconduct, anchored on the theory that respondents knowingly and deliberately delayed the transfer of the said criminal cases to the RTC.

Factual and Procedural Antecedents

The criminal cases stemmed from the slaying of the eleven suspected members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang by PNP personnel on May 18, 1995. The Ombudsman filed eleven (11) informations for murder with the Sandiganbayan on November 21, 1995, and amended them on March 1, 1996, downgrading the charge against Panfilo M. Lacson from principal to accessory-after-the-fact.

The OCA’s factual narration showed that on March 5 and 6, 1996, eleven of the accused moved to transfer the cases to the RTC or to dismiss them, invoking the alleged lack of jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan over offenses where the principal accused were PNP officials with the rank of Chief Superintendent or higher, or any government official with a salary grade of 27 or upwards. In an Order dated March 14, 1996, the Sandiganbayan resolved to consider the jurisdictional issue for decision.

On March 26, 1996, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 121-96, respondents Garchitorena and De Leon were designated Special Members of a three-man Second Division composed of Justices Balajadia, Demetriou, and Lagman, for Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057. On a 3-2 vote, the Sandiganbayan ordered the transfer of the cases to the RTC in the Resolution dated May 8, 1996.

Motions for Reconsideration and Alleged Delay

On May 17 and 22, 1996, the public and private prosecutors filed separate motions for reconsideration of the May 8, 1996 Resolution, with corresponding oppositions filed by the complainant. The incident was deemed submitted for resolution by the end of June 1996, but the Sandiganbayan allegedly failed to resolve the motions despite several motions for early resolution.

The complainant’s theory emphasized a close relationship between the delay and legislative developments. The OCA recounted that on May 27, 1996—nineteen days after the Sandiganbayan ordered the transfer—House Bill No. 5323 was filed to amend Section 4 of the old law on Sandiganbayan jurisdiction by deleting the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused,” thereby extending jurisdiction to offenses involving high-ranking officials regardless of whether participation was as principal, accomplice, or accessory. On September 26, 1996, a counterpart bill was filed before the Senate, and Presiding Justice Garchitorena, who had earlier expressed a dissent advocating retention of the cases by the Sandiganbayan, allegedly attended and participated in Senate hearings on the bill.

On February 5, 1997, the bill was signed into law as R.A. 8249. The transitory provisions of R.A. 8249 allegedly provided for the transfer to the Sandiganbayan of cases falling under its modified jurisdiction pending before the RTC but not yet commenced trial. Complainant asserted that respondent Justices delayed resolution of the motions in anticipation of this amendatory law, which could eliminate the jurisdictional objection to the Sandiganbayan trying the cases instead of transferring them to the RTC.

Administrative Complaint and Its Narrowing

Complainant filed a Verified Complaint dated February 24, 1997 initially charging all identified Sandiganbayan members and special members involved in the May 8, 1996 resolution. On April 16, 1997, complainant filed a Motion to Admit Amended Complaint, dropping some respondents to reflect that the alleged delay was attributable only to two justices: Presiding Justice Garchitorena and Associate Justice Sabino R. de Leon.

A Verified Amended Complaint dated April 16, 1997 then charged Garchitorena and de Leon with: (a) willful violation of Section 7, P.D. No. 1606 and Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan; (b) violations of the Canons of Judicial Conduct—Rule 1.02, Rule 2.01, Rule 3.01, and Rule 3.05—as they relate to prompt disposition and professional competence; and (c) gross misconduct, for knowingly and deliberately delaying transfer of the criminal cases to the RTC.

Complainant further asserted that the motions for reconsideration remained unresolved for almost ten (10) months, notwithstanding repeated pleas for early resolution.

Intervention on the Motion to Dismiss as to Justice de Leon

The Supreme Court’s proceedings in the administrative case included interlocutory incidents. On July 7, 1997, the Court noted the complaint, granted the motion to admit the amended complaint, and required respondents Garchitorena and de Leon to submit comments.

On August 15, 1997, respondent Garchitorena filed a Motion to Dismiss Petition as Against Justice Sabino R. de Leon, contending that Justice de Leon should be discharged because he received the draft of the resolution on the motion for reconsideration only on February 26, 1997 and released the draft with his own concurrence with, and dissent to, the ponencia on February 27, 1997.

On September 3, 1997, the Court required complainant to comment on the motion to dismiss as against Justice de Leon. Complainant, upon receipt, filed a comment indicating no objection and joining the motion to dismiss.

On October 12, 1998, the Supreme Court granted the motion to dismiss as to Justice Sabino R. de Leon and excused him from filing a rejoinder and from further participation, emphasizing that complainant had acquiesced to the dismissal and that any failure to file a rejoinder was not warranted because Justice de Leon was not furnished the reply that would have required a rejoinder.

Issues Presented to the Court

With Justice de Leon dismissed from the administrative case, the Court focused on whether Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena was administratively liable for alleged long delay in resolving motions for reconsideration of the May 8, 1996 Resolution, and for gross misconduct for allegedly knowing and deliberately delaying transfer of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 to the RTC.

Governing Legal Framework on Timeliness and Prompt Disposition

The Supreme Court anchored the first set of charges on the statutory and rule-based requirements for decision and reconsideration. Section 7 of P.D. No. 1606 required that a petition for reconsideration be decided within thirty (30) days from submission, and similarly, Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan prescribed that motions for reconsideration be decided within thirty (30) days from submission.

The Court also invoked the Code of Judicial Conduct, particularly Rule 1.02 (administer justice impartially and without delay) and Rule 3.05 (dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within required periods). It further cited SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87 and SC Administrative Circular No. 1-88 to reinforce that judges must observe prescribed periods and act promptly on motions and interlocutory matters.

The Court’s Assessment of the Delay

The Court found it difficult to dispute the length and inexcusable nature of the delay. The motions for reconsideration remained pending for almost ten (10) months, even after several motions for early resolution. The Court noted that the May 8, 1996 Resolution itself was a thirty-page decision rendered in less than two (2) months from submission, and it came even after barely six (6) weeks from the designation of respondents Garchitorena and de Leon to complete the five-man composition.

The Court reiterated the maxim “justice delayed is justice denied,” particularly in criminal cases, where the accused is constitutionally guaranteed the right to a speedy trial, defined as one conducted according to law and free from vexatious, capricious, and oppressive delays. The Court explained that delays erode faith in the judiciary, lower standards, and bring the administration of justice into disrepute.

On the evidence presented, the Court held that respondent Garchitorena’s delay in resolving the motions for reconsideration was unreasonable and inexcusable and could not be condoned.

Whether the Delay Amounted to Gross Misconduct

While the Court held that the delay exposed the presiding justice to administrative culpability for unreasonable delay, it ruled that it did not rise to gross or serious misconduct. The Court explained the doctrinal distinction: misconduct is unlawful conduct prejudicial to parties’ rights, typically requiring wrongful, improper, or unlawful conduct motivated by a premeditated, obstinate, or intentional purpose. It further emphasized that for administrative liability to attach as gross misconduct, it must be established that the respondent acted with bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or similar motive. Bad faith, the Court held, is not mere bad judgment or negligence; it contemplates a dishonest purpose and a breach of sworn duty through motive or intent for ulterior purposes.

The Court found no convincing proof of such ill will. It examined the context in which respondent participated: he and Justice de Leon joined deliberations only because the prosecution’s proposed amendment to the information met a lack of unanimity from the majority. The issues before the Sandiganbayan were whether the amendment downgrading Lacson’s liability from principal to accessory was appropriate, and whether such an amendment was reviewable by the Sandiganbayan or within the prosecution’s exclusive domain before arraignment. The Court noted that respondent had earlier dissented and that participation remained limited to the three-member composition to resolve the impasse created by Justice Balajadia’s dissent.

The Court reasoned that neit

Case Syllabus (SB-99-9-J)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Jewel F. Canson filed an administrative complaint as Complainant against Hon. Francis E. Garchitorena, Hon. Jose S. Balajadia, Hon. Harriet O. Demetriou, and Hon. Sabino R. de Leon in their capacities as Members/Special Members of the Sandiganbayan (Second Division).
The administrative complaint alleged violations of Section 7, P.D. No. 1606, Rule 8 of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, Rules 1.02, 2.01, 3.01, and 3.05 of the Canons of Judicial Conduct, and Gross Misconduct.
The Court treated the administrative case as within its disciplinary authority over magistrates.
The Court initially noted the administrative complaint and later admitted an Amended Complaint dropping certain respondents.
The Court proceeded to resolve the remaining issue of whether respondent Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice was administratively liable for delay in resolving a pending motion for reconsideration and for alleged stonewalling of the transfer of criminal cases.
The Court later dismissed the administrative complaint as against Justice Sabino R. de Leon, Jr., excusing him from further participation due to the circumstances shown on the record.

Key Factual Allegations

The criminal cases involved People of the Philippines vs. Chief Insp. Michael Ray Aquino, et al., connected with the slaying of the eleven suspected members of the Kuratong Baleleng Gang by PNP personnel on May 18, 1995.
The Ombudsman filed eleven (11) informations for murder with the Sandiganbayan, then amended them on March 1, 1996, downgrading liability of Panfilo M. Lacson from principal to accessory after the fact.
The accused moved on March 5 and 6, 1996 to transfer the cases to the RTC or to dismiss on jurisdictional grounds related to the rank and salary grade of the principal accused.
On March 14, 1996, the Sandiganbayan resolved to consider the jurisdictional issue for decision.
After Administrative Order No. 121-96 on March 26, 1996, Justices Garchitorena and De Leon were designated as Special Members of a three-man Second Division for the purpose of resolving Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057.
On a three-to-two (3-2) vote, the Sandiganbayan ordered the transfer of the cases to the RTC, Quezon City in a resolution dated May 8, 1996.
The prosecution and private prosecutors filed separate motions for reconsideration on May 17 and 22, 1996, and the incident was deemed submitted for resolution by end of June 1996, yet it remained unresolved for almost ten (10) months.
The administrative complaint asserted that the delay persisted despite several motions for early resolution.
The complainant argued that the respondents delayed knowingly and deliberately in anticipation of a legislative amendment that would affect jurisdiction over the cases.
House Bill No. 5323 was filed May 27, 1996 to amend jurisdiction by deleting the word “principal” from the phrase “principal accused” in Section 4 of the old law.
A counterpart Senate bill was filed on September 26, 1996, and respondent Presiding Justice Francis Garchitorena allegedly participated in Senate hearings and thus was aware of the legislative developments.
The bill became law as R.A. 8249 on February 5, 1997, and its transitory provisions addressed transfer of cases falling under modified jurisdiction that were pending before the RTC.
The resolution resolving the motions for reconsideration, though dated September 4, 1996, was promulgated on March 5, 1997.
The complainant maintained that key draft readiness in October 1996 by other justices showed that the later resolution timing was attributable to the respondent’s conduct rather than to deliberative needs.

Statutory and Canon Bases Cited

The charge for delay anchored on Section 7, P.D. No. 1606, which required that a petition for reconsideration of any final order or decision be decided within thirty (30) days from submission.
The corresponding rule-based time limit was also based on Rule VIII of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan, which similarly required a decision on motions for reconsideration within thirty (30) days from submission.
The complainant invoked Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring a judge to administer justice impartially and without delay.
The complainant invoked Rule 2.01 requiring a judge to behave at all times to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
The complainant invoked Rule 3.01 requiring faithfulness to the law and maintenance of professional competence.
The complainant invoked Rule 3.05, requiring judges to dispose of court business promptly and decide within required periods.
The administrative complaint also alleged gross misconduct consisting of knowingly and deliberately delaying the transfer of the criminal cases to the RTC.

Administrative Proceedings and Incidents

The Court noted the administrative complaint and admitted the amended complaint in a resolution dated July 7, 1997, dropping certain respondents.
The Court required the remaining respondents to file comments within specified periods.
The Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice filed a motion to dismiss the petition as against Justice Sabino R. de Leon, Jr., arguing that he received the draft on February 26, 1997 and concurred and dissented the next day on February 27, 1997.
The Court required complainant to comment on the motion to dismiss as against Justice de Leon, Jr., and complainant replied that he was joining the motion to dismiss.
Respondent Garchitorena filed a comment denying the allegations on September 5, 1997, and complainant reiterated non-objection to dismiss.
The Court issued subsequent resolutions requiring replies and rejoinders, and it addressed compliance issues arising from procedural filings.
Justice Garchitorena filed a