Case Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-91-598)
Allegations of Misconduct
Atty. Cruz filed a verified administrative complaint against Judge Basa, accusing him of serious misconduct for delaying the resolution of a motion to dismiss related to the aforementioned criminal cases. The complaint also highlighted that Judge Basa submitted a false Monthly Report to the Statistics Division of the Supreme Court on April 30, 1991, indicating that these criminal cases had been disposed of, despite their pending status.
Procedural Background
In February 1991, the motion to dismiss filed by Rodolfo Cruz, asserting that the cases should be prosecuted under the Rule on Summary Procedure, became a point of contention. Atty. Cruz opposed this motion, arguing the application of Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code rendered the cases outside the ambit of the summary procedure. Despite the arguments from both parties, Judge Basa did not act on the motion until June 3, 1991, thereby failing to resolve the matter expediently.
Admissions by the Respondent
In his defense, Judge Basa admitted to the delay, attributing it to excessive motions filed by Atty. Cruz and claiming he prepared a resolution but had not signed it due to seeking advice on self-inhibition. However, the delay raised suspicions of partiality, with Atty. Cruz alleging that the inaction was detrimental to his interests and indicative of favor toward the accused.
Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator
The Office of the Court Administrator found Judge Basa guilty of the misconduct alleged in the complaint. It emphasized that the respondent's explanations were insufficient to justify the delay and noted the absence of any documented final draft resolution during the significant period of inactivity. The report established that no legitimate procedural impediment existed that would excuse the inaction observed from February 18 to June 3, 1991.
Judicial Precedents and Rules Violated
Citing precedents such as Ubarra v. Tecson and Aquino v. Luntok, the ruling underscored the critical importance of prompt action by judges in resolving cases and motions, as well as adhering
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. MTJ-91-598)
Case Background
- The case originated from a verified administrative complaint filed by Atty. Cornelio C. Cruz against Judge Romulo C. Basa of the Municipal Trial Court of Norzagaray, Bulacan.
- The complaint, dated September 19, 1991, alleged serious misconduct by Judge Basa in his official capacity.
- Atty. Cruz served as the private prosecutor in twenty estafa cases against Rodolfo Cruz, which were pending before Judge Basa.
Allegations Against the Respondent Judge
- Complainant accused Judge Basa of delaying the resolution of a motion to dismiss the criminal cases against Rodolfo Cruz.
- It was claimed that the judge submitted a false Monthly Report on April 30, 1991, indicating that the cases had been disposed of when, in fact, they were still pending resolution.
- The estafa cases involved amounts ranging from over P200.00 to P6,000.00.
Details of the Proceedings
- Rodolfo Cruz filed counter-affidavits and motions to dismiss the cases, arguing they should follow the Rule on Summary Procedure.
- Complainant Atty. Cruz opposed this motion, asserting that the cases carried penalties exceeding the limits for summary procedures.
- Judge Basa did not rule on the motion to dismiss but scheduled an oral argument for February 18, 1991.
- Following the oral argument, from February 18 to J