Serra v. Belarmino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Respondent Judge Leodegario A. Belarmino, Municipal Judge of Batuan, Masbate, was designated to sit in the municipal court of San Fernando, Masbate, to try an ejectment case, Rivas vs. Espenilla. The case was submitted for decision on March 16, 1974. The ninety-day period for deciding it expired on June 14, 1974. The respondent decided the case on November 4, 1974, after a delay of 143 days. Procedural History: The respondent attributed the delay to the court stenographer's failure to transcribe her notes promptly due to maternity leave. He also claimed the case was partly tried by another judge and a memorandum was not submitted by one of the lawyers. In his certificates of service for July, August, September, and October 1974, the respondent stated that all cases under submission for ninety days or more had been decided on or before the date of the certificates. He excluded the San Fernando case, claiming his predecessor advised him that certificates referred only to cases docketed in his own court. Fidel Serra, a defendant in the ejectment case, filed a verified complaint asking for the respondent's dismissal for falsifying his certificates of service. The respondent alleged the complaint was filed to harass him and that Serra attempted to extort money. The Petition: The complainant, Fidel Serra, alleged that respondent Judge Belarmino falsified his certificates of service by failing to disclose the delay in deciding the ejectment case and by falsely stating that all cases under submission for ninety days or more had been decided within the period. The respondent admitted the delay and non-inclusion in the certificates.
Issue(s)
Whether the delay in the disposition of the ejectment case was inexcusable, constituting a culpable dereliction of duty. Whether the respondent judge falsified his certificates of service. Whether the respondent judge committed a culpable dereliction of duty, beyond the delay in the ejectment case.
Ruling
The Court found the delay in the disposition of the ejectment case to be inexcusable and held that the respondent judge committed a culpable dereliction of duty. The respondent judge was severely censured and reprimanded, with a warning that further irregularities would merit a more drastic penalty. A copy of the decision was ordered attached to his personal record.
Ratio Decidendi
On the inexcusable delay in the disposition of the ejectment case and culpable dereliction of duty: The Court held that the delay of 143 days in deciding the ejectment case was inexcusable. The respondent judge should have taken steps to ensure the prompt transcription of stenographic notes when he took over the case. Furthermore, for cases heard by the judge who is to render the decision, the ninety-day period for deciding commences from the date the case is submitted for decision, not from the date the stenographic notes are transcribed. The respondent's failure to decide the case within the constitutional period constituted a culpable dereliction of duty. A municipal judge has a duty to perform his functions properly and within the prescribed periods. On the falsification of certificates of service: The respondent judge, in his certificates of service for July, August, September, and October 1974, stated that all cases under submission for ninety days or more had been decided within the period. However, the ejectment case, which was submitted on March 16, 1974, was only decided on November 4, 1974, a delay of 143 days. By stating that all cases were decided within the period when one case was significantly delayed, the respondent judge made false statements in his official certifications, which could be considered falsification. The explanation that the certificates only referred to cases in his own court and not those in a detailed assignment was found unconvincing. On the culpable dereliction of duty beyond the delay in the ejectment case: The Court found that the respondent judge's misrepresentation in the certificates of service, demonstrated a disregard for his official obligations. A municipal judge may be disciplined for not performing his duties properly or for being unfit for the office, as provided by law.
Main Doctrine
A municipal judge who falsifies certificates of service by stating that all cases submitted for decision have been decided within the ninety-day period when in fact there was an inexcusable delay in the disposition of a case, commits a culpable dereliction of duty and may be disciplined.