magtibay vs judge indar

A.M. No. RTJ-11-2271 September 24, 2012

(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3239-RTJ)

LUCIA O. MAGTIBAY, Complainant,

vs.

JUDGE CADER P. INDAR, AI Haj., Regional Trial Court, Branch 14, Cotabato City, Respondent.

FULL TEXT

Facts:

On March 17, 2009, respondent judge issued an Order2 noting the Motion for Amendment of Caption. However, anent the motion for the issuance of TRO, respondent judge required the intervenors to submit a Comment within ten days from receipt of the Order and further ordered that upon submission of said Comment, the case be set for hearing for reception of additional evidence and/or arguments from both parties. Complainant claimed that Intervenors only took one week from March 17, 2009 to submit their Comment but failed to furnish them a copy thereof.

In the disputed Order3 dated March 26, 2009, respondent judge denied the Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order for utter lack of merit and berated complainant for having allegedly filed libelous pleadings and threatened her with imposition of fine if the same allegations are repeated.

However, complainant argued that there was no hearing on the Application for Writ of Preliminary Injunction and/or Temporary Restraining Order that would determine the veracity of their allegations. Complainant, hence, suspected that respondent judge was denying complainant's motions and request in order to favor the intervenors. Complainant likewise pointed out that the context of respondent judge's March 26, 2009 Order appeared as if he was "lawyering" for Dumlao and Vicente L. Olarte.

Complainant further claimed that they filed a Motion for Reconsideration with Motion for Inhibition of respondent judge, but the said motion was left unresolved by respondent judge. It likewise did not help that respondent judge exhibited rude behavior against complainant's counsel and authorized representative, Victoria S. Tolentino and Jommel L. Valles (Valles). Complainant claimed that said representatives, particularly Valles, experienced unwarranted boorish and scurrilous treatment from respondent judge.

In his Sinumpaang Salaysay,4 Valles deposed that on May 18, 2009, he, together with complainant's daughter, Leonida M. Delos Santos, tried to secure some documents relative to Special Proceedings No. 2004-074. However, after waiting for several hours, Valles claimed that respondent judge confronted them and argued that they have no legal personality to acquire said documents, thus, denied their request. He further narrated that while they were explaining that they were the same people who filed for certain motions, respondent judge said, "Denied na ung motion nyo." Valles added that when Delos Santos insisted on their request, respondent judge retorted "Huwag mo ng ituloy ang sasabihin mo kumukulo ang dugo sa inyo lumayas na kayo marami akong problema." He claimed that respondent judge even stated: "Ireklamo ninyo na ako ng administratibo sa Supreme Court at sila ang magsabi kung pwede ko kayong bigyan ng kopya ng records."

Thus, the instant complaint against respondent judge.

Issue:

is the judge liable for Undue Delay in Rendering an Order and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge

Ruling:

YES.

The grant or denial of a writ of preliminary injunction in a pending case rests on the sound discretion of the court taking cognizance of the case, since the assessment and evaluation of evidence towards that end involves findings of facts left to the said court for its conclusive determination. Hence, the exercise of judicial discretion by a court in injunctive matters must not be interfered with.11 In the absence of fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, as in this case, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action.

However, in so far as the requirement of hearing in cases of denial of the application for the issuance of a TRO, it must be emphasized that while it is true that the right to due process safeguards the opportunity to be heard and to submit any evidence one may have in support of his claim or defense, the Court has time and again held that where the opportunity to be heard, either through verbal arguments or pleadings, is accorded, and the party can "present its side" or defend its "interest in due course," there is no denial of due process. What the law proscribes is the lack of opportunity to be heard.12 Indeed, respondent judge's order for intervenors to submit their comments on the application for the issuance of TRO constitutes substantial compliance in so far as the parties' right to due process since the latter do not strictly call for a formal or trial-type hearing.

However, on the charge of undue delay in resolving the Motion to Dismiss and Motion for Inhibition, we agree that respondent judge should be liable thereto. Respondent judge admitted that he did not act on the motion pending before his court, albeit, he justified this by saying that his silence or inaction should be construed as denial. We do not agree. Even assuming that respondent judge did not find the motion to be meritorious, he could have simply acted on the said motions and indicated the supposed defects in his resolutions instead of just leaving them unresolved.13

Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature. No less than the Constitution mandates that lower courts must dispose of their cases promptly and decide them within three months from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court concerned. In addition, a judge's delay in resolving, within the prescribed period, pending motions and incidents constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring judges to dispose of court business promptly.14

There should be no more doubt that undue inaction on judicial concerns is not just undesirable but more so detestable, especially now when our all-out effort is directed towards minimizing, if not totally eradicating, the perennial problem of congestion and delay long plaguing our courts. The requirement that cases be decided within the reglementary period is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice, for obviously, justice delayed is justice denied. An unwarranted slow down in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.15 1âwphi1

We likewise agree with the OCA's finding that respondent exhibited rude behavior in dealing with the public. Whether complainant and her counsel were entitled to the requested documents is not the issue, but the manner of how he declined the request. Certainly, his statement which he did not deny: "Huwag mo ng ituloy ang sasabihin mo kumukulo ang dugo sa inyo lumayas na kayo marami akong problema" does not speak well of his position as member of the bench. Noticeably, even in his Comment, respondent's choice of words was likewise inappropriate.16 This we will not tolerate.

However, during the pendency of this case, we note that in A.M. No. RTJ-10-2232,17 respondent has already been dismissed from the service that already attained finality considering that respondent did not file any motion for reconsideration. Nevertheless, it should be emphasized that the same does not render the instant case moot and academic because accessory penalties may still be imposed.