Re: Editorial of Negros Chronicle v. Carampatan
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative case stemmed from an editorial published in the Negros Chronicle questioning Judge Rogelio L. Carampatan's issuance of a contempt order against its editor and publisher, Ely P. Dejaresco, and his failure to submit certificates of service on time. Procedural History: The complaint was investigated, and Judge Carampatan explained that Dejaresco failed to appear at two scheduled hearings for an adoption case, leading to the contempt order. Dejaresco apologized, and the contempt order was lifted. Separately, Judge Carampatan was found to have failed to submit his certificates of service from February to August 2002. He explained this was due to being busy with his work. He later submitted the certificates and pleaded for consideration. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended a sanction for less serious offense. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution on the administrative charges against Judge Carampatan.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Carampatan improperly issued a contempt order against Ely P. Dejaresco. Whether Judge Carampatan failed to submit his certificates of service on time and made false declarations therein.
Ruling
The Supreme Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00 on Judge Rogelio L. Carampatan for his failure to timely submit his certificates of service and for making false declarations therein, with a stern warning against future infractions. The charge regarding the improper issuance of a contempt order was found to be without merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the alleged improper issuance of a contempt order against Dejaresco: The Court found no merit in this charge. Records showed that the contempt order was based on Dejaresco's failure to appear at two scheduled hearings despite due notice. Dejaresco's excuse that his work as a newspaperman required him to travel did not justify his non-appearance, as summonses were duly served and received on his behalf. It is his duty to ensure he is informed of the service of legal papers. Thus, the issuance of the contempt order was not without basis. Furthermore, no harm resulted as the order was immediately lifted upon Dejaresco's appearance. On the failure to submit certificates of service and false declarations: The Court found that Judge Carampatan violated the Judiciary Act of 1948 by failing to submit his certificates of service on time for the period of February 2002 up to October 2002. The records also showed a continued neglect in timely submission, with his last certificate on file being for October 2002 as of January 2003. This infraction was compounded by a false declaration in his January 2002 certificate of service, stating he had no pending cases submitted for resolution beyond the 90-day period, when the Monthly Report of Cases for his branch showed twenty-six cases submitted for resolution, eighteen of which were pending decision beyond the reglementary period, and one submitted as early as March 1998. Judges are required to submit monthly certificates of service stating that all cases submitted for decision have been resolved within the legal period. Judge Carampatan's excuse of being busy did not justify his failure to submit these certificates on time, as it is part of his duty. Moreover, the certificates must contain true and correct information regarding the status of cases.
Main Doctrine
Judges are required to submit monthly certificates of service stating that all cases submitted for decision have been resolved within the legal period. Failure to do so, especially when compounded by false declarations regarding case status, constitutes a less serious offense meriting a fine.