Adm. Case No. 238-J - Rafael S. Dadivas, Jr. vs. Hon. Cesar Kintanar

Case Summary (Adm. Case No. 238-J)

Factual Background: Civil Case 9343 and the Alleged Misconduct

On April 10, 1970, the complainant commenced an action for damages arising from breach of contract against Elizalde International (Phil.) Inc. and its officers Manuel Elizalde, Sr. (president), Francisco Elizalde (vice-president), and Jesus Bilbao (general manager) before the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental. By raffle, the case, docketed as Civil Case 9343, was assigned to the sala presided over by the respondent. The complainant alleged that the respondent displayed partiality through various acts and rulings which, in his view, amounted to serious misconduct and serious inefficiency.

The specific acts attributed to the respondent included the following: the respondent allegedly lumped together the pre-trial and trial proper; despite the defendants’ non-appearance at the pre-trial, the respondent allegedly granted postponements multiple times from July 8, 1970 to November 17, 1970; at the pre-trial on November 17, 1970, although the defendants allegedly still failed to appear, the respondent allegedly ordered the complainant to proceed with trial without holding the mandatory pre-trial; the respondent allegedly interrupted and stopped the complainant’s testimony and suspended proceedings upon the defense counsel’s verbal manifestation that he intended to secure the deposition by oral examination of Jesus Bilbao in Makati, Rizal; the respondent allegedly left Bacolod City on November 23, 1970 contrary to an existing Department of Justice circular requiring notice when judges leave their districts on regular session days, and returned only on December 1, 1970, allegedly thwarting the complainant’s efforts to stop the oral deposition by an urgent motion set for hearing on November 26, 1970; and on December 10, 1970, after acting on written notices and motions, the respondent allegedly allowed depositions of Manuel and Francisco Elizalde via written interrogatories, while leaving unresolved the complainant’s urgent motion to stop the oral deposition of Bilbao.

The complainant further alleged additional events during trial: on June 7, 1971, the respondent allegedly suspended cross-examination of a defense witness upon the oral request of defense counsel; on August 16, 1971, after the defendants closed their defense, the respondent allegedly allowed alterations and/or new markings on documents without the requisite motion and notice to the complainant; and on August 16, 1971, despite alleged objections and memoranda filed by the complainant on August 19, 1971 and September 9, 1971, the respondent allegedly granted postponements from August 16, 1971 to December 15, 1971 to allow sur-rebuttal, while refusing and failing to resolve several motions filed by the complainant since August 30, 1971, namely: (a) a motion for reconsideration of the order taking depositions via written interrogatories; (b) a motion seeking impounding of the defendant company’s records; and (c) a motion asking for investigation of the court interpreter for alleged negligence.

On serious inefficiency, the complainant alleged that the respondent “seldom took notes,” often fell asleep during trials, and showed lax supervision of court personnel. The complainant specifically asserted that, although he requested the court stenographer to transcribe the notes of multiple hearings held on September 1, 1970, August 16 to 26, 1971, and September 1, the respondent refused to order transcription.

Respondent’s Answer and Explanation

On April 22, 1972, the respondent submitted his answer, denying the charged acts and praying for dismissal on the ground that the complaint was filed merely to annoy and harass him. He explained that the complainant had allegedly manifested agreement with the defense counsel’s motion to set the pre-trial and trial in Civil Case 9343. He stated that he conducted the pre-trial on November 17, 1970, citing testimony of the complainant’s witness as well as his own account. He denied that his departure from Bacolod on November 23, 1970 was intended to frustrate opposition to the taking of Bilbao’s deposition; instead, he claimed he was on sick leave from November 23 to November 26, 1970, but worked on November 27 and 28, 1970. He added that November 29, 1970 was a Sunday and November 30, 1970 was a legal holiday.

With respect to the deposition, the respondent invoked the Rules of Court, contending that depositions by written interrogatories were sanctioned. He maintained that he granted postponements only upon application by a party with the agreement of the other, within the rules’ limitations. He conceded that he allowed a postponement of the hearing on August 16, 1971 upon the petition of the complainant. As to allegations of serious inefficiency, he asserted that he took notes, that he did not doze off, and that if he closed his eyes, he nevertheless listened attentively and focused on proceedings. He also pointed to affirmances of his decisions by appellate courts and to a resolution of appreciation by the Bacolod City Lawyers League commending him as presiding judge.

Referral for Investigation and the Investigator’s Report

By resolution dated June 27, 1972, the Court referred the administrative complaint to Hon. Emilio Gancayco of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. On November 13, 1972, Justice Gancayco submitted his report, concluding that no clear evidence had been adduced to substantiate the charges of grave misconduct and serious inefficiency, and recommending dismissal.

Justice Gancayco’s findings addressed the complainant’s allegations seriatim. On the claim that the respondent “lumped together” pre-trial and trial, the investigator observed that “Actually a pre-trial appears to have been conducted,” though the transcript, if any, was not offered in evidence, and he derived this finding from the testimony of the respondent and the complainant’s witness Rafael S. Dadivas, Sr. On postponements, the investigator found that while the case had been set for hearing on July 8, 1970, the respondent rescheduled pre-trial and trial for September 1 and 2, 1970 not only on the defense counsel’s motion but also on the manifestation of the complainant himself. The investigator stated that on September 1, the defense counsel sought postponement due to lack of written authorization to represent the defendants. The respondent granted the motion and reset the pre-trial for September 14, without objection from the complainant. On September 14, the defense counsel moved again because he still could not find the written authorization, and the complainant did not object. The respondent then reset pre-trial for November 17 and the trial proper for November 18.

As to the events at pre-trial on November 17, the investigator related that none of the defendants appeared. The defense counsel presented a manifestation authorizing him to represent the defendants at pre-trial. The complainant objected as insufficient and asked that the defendants be adjudged in default, but the objection was overruled. With no possibility of settlement, the court ordered the plaintiff to proceed to trial on the merits.

On the deposition issue and the alleged failure to resolve the urgent motion to stop oral examination of Bilbao, the investigator found that during trial proper on November 17, the defense counsel moved to postpone the trial, manifesting intent to file a written notice for deposition by oral examination. The respondent granted the postponement over the complainant’s objection. The investigator noted that on November 23, 1970, the complainant filed an urgent motion to stop deposition by oral examination of Bilbao, setting it for hearing on November 26, and simultaneously filed a written notice for the taking of the depositions of Manuel and Francisco Elizalde by oral examination before the Court of First Instance of Manila on December 15, also serving notice to the defendants by telegram.

The investigator further stated that on November 26, 1970, the respondent went on sick leave, prompting the re-setting of the urgent motion for December 10, 1970. Then, on December 1, 1970, defense counsel filed a motion objecting to oral examination deposition, arguing it would merely cause annoyance and embarrassment, and requested deposition by written interrogatories. The respondent, finding the request reasonable, ordered depositions of the defendants by written interrogatories. As for the complainant’s claim that the respondent did not act on the urgent motion to stop the deposition of Bilbao, the investigator recounted that the complainant later brought the matter to this Court by petition for certiorari with mandamus or prohibition, which the Court dismissed as premature. The investigator added that, on February 16, 1971, the respondent denied the urgent motion, and he refrained from ruling on the complainant’s other motion dated December 15, 1970 because on that same date the complainant filed a memorandum.

Regarding allegations that the respondent and the court interpreter conspired to order the deposition of Bilbao despite procedural deficiencies such as the lack of marking and offering of an exhibit, the investigator found that the respondent’s signature indicated only receipt of the deposition by the court.

On the alleged delay in the disposition of the case and the granting of postponements, the investigator observed that continuances were usually on motion of the plaintiff or the defense with the complainant’s conformity, and that the greater delay was caused by the filing of the complainant’s petition for certiorari before resolution by the Court.

Finally, on the broader allegations of grave misconduct, the investigator declared that other facts raised by the complainant were not duly proven.

Assessment of the Charge of Serious Inefficiency

On the charge of s

Case Syllabus (Adm. Case No. 238-J)

Parties and Procedural Posture

Rafael S. Dadivas, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against Hon. Cesar Kintanar, then presiding judge of Branch IV of the Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, charging him with grave misconduct and serious inefficiency.
The complainant filed the complaint with the Court on March 16, 1972, and he simultaneously urged the Court to restrain the respondent from further acting in Civil Case 9343 and to suspend the payment of the respondent’s retirement gratuity and other benefits.
The Court referred the administrative complaint to Hon. Emilio Gancayco of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation by a resolution dated June 27, 1972.
After receiving the investigator’s report, the Court considered the report together with the pleadings and annexes submitted by both parties.
The respondent filed an answer on April 22, 1972, denying the charged acts and praying for dismissal on the ground that the complaint was filed to annoy and harass him.
The respondent automatically retired from the service on April 24, 1972, and he received his retirement gratuity and the money value of his terminal leave pursuant to a certification of the Department of Justice dated November 24, 1972.
The Court, upon careful review, dismissed the complaint after adopting the investigator’s recommendation.

Key Allegations in Civil Case 9343

The complainant asserted that by raffle Civil Case 9343 was assigned to the respondent’s sala, and he attributed alleged partiality to the respondent based on the handling of pre-trial and trial.
The complainant alleged that the respondent lumped together the pre-trial and the trial proper of Civil Case 9343 in a manner the complainant considered favorable to the defendants.
The complainant alleged that the respondent granted postponements thrice from July 8, 1970 to November 17, 1970 despite the defendants’ non-appearance at pre-trial.
The complainant alleged that on November 17, 1970, even after the defendants failed to appear, the respondent ordered the complainant to proceed with trial on the merits without holding the mandatory pre-trial.
The complainant alleged that during the complainant’s testimony at the witness stand, the respondent interrupted and stopped the proceedings upon defense counsel’s verbal manifestation that deposition by oral examination was intended.
The complainant alleged that on November 23, 1970, the respondent left Bacolod City, returning only on December 1, 1970, thereby allegedly thwarting the complainant’s urgent motion to stop the deposition of defendant Jesus Bilbao.
The complainant alleged that on December 10, 1970, the respondent violated an alleged Department of Justice circular by not giving notice when leaving, and instead permitted the taking of depositions of defendants Manuel and Francisco Elizalde upon written interrogatories, while allegedly leaving undetermined the complainant’s urgent motion to stop the deposition of Bilbao.
The complainant alleged that on June 7, 1971, the respondent suspended cross-examination of a defense witness upon the oral request of defense counsel to catch a late morning flight for Manila.
The complainant alleged that on August 16, 1971, the respondent allowed defense counsel to make alterations or new markings on documents attached to the records without the requisite motion and notice to the complainant.
The complainant alleged that after his objections raised through memoranda and replicas, the respondent granted postponements from August 16, 1971 to December 15, 1971 to allow sur-rebuttal evidence based on allegedly capricious motions.
The complainant alleged that the respondent refused and failed to act on pending motions filed since August 30, 1971, namely: a motion for reconsideration of the order on the Elizalde deposition format, a motion to impound the company records to prevent tampering, and a motion seeking investigation of the court interpreter for negligence.
On serious inefficiency, the complainant alleged that the respondent seldom took notes of facts and points of law and jurisprudence, and that he sometimes fell asleep during trials.
The complainant alleged laxity in supervision of court personnel, citing the respondent’s refusal or failure to order the court stenographer to transcribe stenographic notes of hearings held on September 1, 1970, August 16 to 26, 1971, and September 1, 1971.
The complainant framed the aggregate conduct as showing lack of integrity, ignorance of law and jurisprudence, and inefficiency in case management and court supervision.

Respondent’s Denials and Explanations

The respondent denied the charged acts and contended that the complainant filed the complaint solely to annoy and harass him.
The respondent asserted that the complainant manifested agreement with the defense counsel’s motion to set pre-trial and trial for Civil Case 9343.
The respondent stated that he conducted the pre-trial on November 17, 1970, countering the allegation that mandatory pre-trial was not held.
As to his alleged absence from Bacolod City on November 23 to December 1, 1970, the respondent claimed he went on sick leave from November 23 to 26, and that he worked on November 27 and 28, 1970.
The respondent explained that the inter