Sanlakas ng Barangay Julo, San Antonio, Inc. v. Empaynado, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants, Sanlakas ng Barangay Julo, San Antonio, Incorporated (SANLAKAS), represented by its officers, filed two criminal cases for malicious mischief against Felicitas de Leon Bascara before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, presided over by respondent Judge Tiburcio V. Empaynado, Jr. SANLAKAS alleged that weeks after filing, no action was taken. Upon inquiry, they were informed that the accused was out of the country, which SANLAKAS later verified as false with the Commission on Immigration and Deportation. SANLAKAS filed a Motion to Set the Case for Hearing, which remained unacted upon. They also discovered that the accused had filed a counter-affidavit, but they were not furnished a copy. SANLAKAS also filed a case for malicious mischief against Angelica de Leon-Vasquez, sister of Bascara, which was recommended for filing by the Provincial Prosecutor, but nothing happened due to the respondent Judge's inaction. SANLAKAS further alleged that a member, Maura Esmundo, was refused assistance by the respondent Judge in arresting a person who threatened her son, with the Judge stating the perpetrator was wealthy and would just post bail. Procedural History: The instant complaint for malicious delay in the administration of justice under Article 207 of the Revised Penal Code and discrimination of action was filed by SANLAKAS against respondent Judge. The respondent Judge denied the allegations, claiming the complaint was a ploy to prevent him from exposing SANLAKAS' irregularities. He asserted that the delay was justified by his review of documents and verification of inconsistent entries. He claimed to have issued an Order on November 6, 1996, directing the Provincial Prosecutor to clarify erroneous entries in SANLAKAS' notarial register. His investigation revealed that SANLAKAS' Articles of Incorporation and By-Laws were ratified before a supposed Notary Public commissioned in Manila who was not commissioned. The SEC Certificate of Registration was also questioned for being filed on a Sunday and showing signs of tampering, with the registration number belonging to another organization. The signatory, Roger Ulatan, was accused of forgery and indicted for perjury and falsification of public documents. Regarding Esmundo's complaint for grave threats, the respondent Judge explained that the case was covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure and required conciliation efforts under PD 1508, thus he referred it to the barangay captain for settlement. He denied intentional delay, stating he was following proper procedure. The respondent Judge, who was also designated to preside over the MTC of San Antonio while still presiding over MTC of Jaen, claimed he doubled his caseload but exerted efforts to prevent delays. The case was referred to Judge Arturo Bernardo for investigation, who recommended censure. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a fine of P2,000.00. The respondent Judge had retired and his retirement pay was withheld pending resolution of administrative cases. The Petition: The Supreme Court reviewed the findings and recommendations, considering the respondent Judge's retirement.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent Judge committed malicious delay in the administration of justice. Whether the respondent Judge discriminated in the performance of his duties. Whether the respondent Judge committed dereliction of duty in handling Maura Esmundo's complaint for grave threats.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found good reason to adopt the recommendation of the Court Administrator and imposed a fine of P2,000.00 on the respondent Judge. The Court found no malice or fraud on the part of the respondent Judge in his persistence to check the veracity and authenticity of the documents, stating that his ardent pursuit of the truth cannot be the basis of the charge for malicious delay in the administration of justice. However, the Court noted that while there was no malicious intent, his misguided efforts derailed the speedy disposition of the cases. The Court found no support for the allegations of dereliction of duty regarding Maura Esmundo's complaint, as the respondent Judge correctly referred the case to the barangay authorities for conciliation, which is a precondition to filing an action in court under PD 1508 and the Rule on Summary Procedure. The Court also noted that the respondent Judge had retired and, in line with jurisprudence, it would not serve any administrative purpose to impose a sanction on him who has compulsorily left the service, but reiterated the fine to be deducted from his withheld retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of malicious delay in the administration of justice: The Court held that while the respondent Judge's persistence in verifying the authenticity of documents submitted by SANLAKAS led to a delay in the disposition of the malicious mischief cases, there was no showing of malice or fraud. The Court emphasized that malice implies an evil intent, which was absent in the respondent Judge's actions. His efforts to uncover irregularities, though perhaps overzealous, were aimed at pursuing the truth. However, the Court acknowledged that these actions, while not malicious, did derail the speedy disposition of the cases, which is contrary to the purpose of the Rule on Summary Procedure. The Court stated that the respondent Judge had several options, such as dismissing the case, requiring responsive pleadings, or setting the case for arraignment and trial, but failed to do any of these, resulting in unreasonable delay. Therefore, a fine was deemed reasonable and just under the circumstances. On the issue of discrimination of action: The Court did not explicitly rule on the charge of discrimination as a separate issue but addressed it implicitly by finding no malice or fraud in the respondent Judge's actions concerning SANLAKAS' cases. The allegation that a case filed by the accused Bascara against SANLAKAS officers was acted upon with dispatch was not directly refuted or affirmed, but the overall finding of no malice suggests that the respondent Judge's actions were not driven by discriminatory intent. The focus remained on the delay in SANLAKAS' cases and the respondent Judge's investigative efforts. On the issue of dereliction of duty regarding Maura Esmundo's complaint: The Court found no basis to support the charges of dereliction of duty. It explained that Section 14 of the Rule on Summary Procedure requires referral to the Lupon or Barangay authorities for conciliation under PD 1508. Since Esmundo's complaint did not show compliance with this requirement, the respondent Judge was correct in referring the case to the barangay captain for possible settlement. The Court clarified that arresting the accused at that stage was not possible as referral to the Lupon Tagapamayapa is a precondition to filing any action or proceeding in court. Thus, the respondent Judge's action was in accordance with proper procedure.
Main Doctrine
While a judge's persistence in checking the veracity and authenticity of documents, even if it leads to delay, cannot be the basis for a charge of malicious delay in the administration of justice in the absence of malice, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption, such misguided efforts that derail the speedy disposition of cases warrant administrative sanction.