Hernandez vs Judge De Guzman : RTJ-93-1064 : January 22, 1996 : J ... http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1996/jan1996/am_rtj_93_1064.htm
[Synopsis/Syllabi]
THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-93-1064. January 22, 1996]
EMILIA B. HERNANDEZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE SALVADOR P. DE.
GUZMAN, Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati City, respondent.
DECISION
PANGANIBAN, J.:
In a letter-complaint dated August 9, 1993, Emilia B. Hernandez charged Judge Salvador P.
de Guzman of the Regional Trial Court (Branch 142), Makati City, with bias as follows:
Pero ang ginawa ng hukom ay lalong pinatagal sa pamamagitan ng re-setting ng re-setting hanggang
inabot ng apat na taon at lalong hindi ko malunok sapagkat sa loob ng apat na taon ay P5,000.00 (limang
libong piso) lang ang makukuha ko. (Rollo, p. 3)
Hernandez was also the complainant in Criminal Case No. 89-1198 entitled People vs.
Yadollah Sichani, for violation of Art. 34 (i) of P.D. 442, as amended (on illegal recruitment). After
trial, respondent Judge rendered a judgment of conviction, dated February 23, 1993, the
dispositive portion of which reads:
The accused is therefore found GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of violating the provisions of Article
34, paragraph i, PD 442, as amended, and is hereby sentenced, as follows:
To pay a fine of P5,000.00 with subsidiary imprisonment in case of unsolvency (sic); and
2.To indemnify Emilia Hernandez in the sum of P5,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
In spite of the foregoing, complainant was not satisfied, claiming that respondent Judge
deliberately delayed the trial. She also felt that the P5,000.00 indemnity awarded her was unfair
and the result of bias.
In his Verified Comment filed on November 16, 1993, respondent Judge contended that the
delay in the resolution of the case (which was received at
Branch 142 on March 16, 1989) IS ATTRIBUTABLE TO MS. HERNANDEZ HERSELF. x x x
After her testimony was given, she was allowed seven (7) dates to have the (NAIA) guards (her
witnesses) take the stand x x x . After the case was deemed submitted for resolution on May 28,
1992, he immediately prepared the decision. Nevertheless, the promulgation was delayed
because the complainant allegedly used to frequent the court house to assure the (rspondent
Judges) staff members that the guards at the NAIA have agreed to testify if she will only be
given an opportunity to reopen the case.
As to the award of P5,000.00, respondent Judge alleged that, per testimony of the
complainant herself, she suffered only P3,000.00 in damages. In rendering the judgment,
respondent relied on the order of the POEA, dated May 29, 1989, in Case No. (L)
RRB-88-01-016 (Emilia Hernandez vs. Filipinas Arabia Resources, Inc.) finding respondent
1 of 2
1/20/2016 7:48 PM