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
2 of 2
therein liable to complainant Hernandez for refund of only P3,000.00.
Finally, respondent Judge pointed out that under Section 1 of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules
of Court, complaints against judges should be sworn to, whereas Ms. Hernandez complaint is
not under oath at all.
By resolution dated December 8, 1993, the Court referred this case to the Court
Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation, and on November 20, 1995, the First
Division transferred it to the Third Division for disposition. After due deliberation and
consultation, the Court agreed with the recommendation dated February 28, 1994 of Deputy
Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad (which was approved by the Court Administrator) and
assigned the writing of this Resolution to undersigned ponente. The said recommendation reads
in part:
The charge that the trial of the case was unduly delayed is meritorious. Although it appears from the very
own admission of respondent Judge that there was delay which is not attributable to him, but to
complainant herself, still he should not have allowed such frequent postponements to delay the trial of the
case. Circular No. I dated January 28, 1988 provides that Trial Judges should adopt a strict policy on
postponement to avoid unnecessary delays in Court procedure. It likewise mandates faithful adherence to
Secs. 3, 4 and 5 of Rule 22 of the Rules of Court. Respondent Judge likewise admitted that the case was
deemed submitted for decision on May 28, 1992. Therefore, it should have been decided by August, 1992.
The fact that complainant repeatedly assured the Court personnel that the NAIA guards had agreed to
testify if the case would be reopened does not justify the delay in the rendition of the Judgment. It appears
that the Judgment is dated February 23, 1993 but the date of actual promulgation does not appear on
record. Reckoned from February 23, 1993, there was already a 6-month delay in the rendition of the
judgment. Logically, it was promulgated at a much later date.
The matter of the grant of only P5,000.00 as indemnity to the complainant is judicial in nature.
Complainant could have resorted to other available legal remedies to question the propriety of the award.
An administrative complaint is not the proper forum for questioning the propriety of a decision or Order
perceived to be unjust or unreasonable.
This Court reminds respondent Judge that he should, at all times, remain in full control of the
proceedings in his sala and should adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements. More
importantly, he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases. He should not have delayed
the preparation and promulgation of the judgment on the hearsay information - which in itself is
flimsy - that complainant allegedly wanted the delay to enable her to present additional
witnesses. After all, by convicting the accused, respondent Judge did not really need their
testimonies anyway.
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered imposing a FINE of five thousand pesos
(P5,000.00) on the respondent Judge for the delay in hearing and deciding Criminal Case No.
89-1198, with the stern WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will
be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide Jr., Melo, and Francisco, JJ., concur.
Narvasa, C.J., took no part. Close association with party.
1/20/2016 7:48 PM