Bejarasco, Jr. v. Buenconsejo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainants Peter Bejarasco, Jr. and Isabelita Bejarasco charged Judge Alfredo D. Buenconsejo, Clerk of Court Secundino Piedad, and Court Stenographer Leonisa Gonzales with dereliction of duty, ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and serious irregularity. The charges stemmed from the promulgation of a decision in Criminal Cases Nos. R-04171 and R-4172, where the complainants were accused of grave threats and grave oral defamation. The respondent judge had previously inhibited himself from these cases, and Executive Judge Epifanio Llanos designated Judge Palmacio Calderon to hear and try them. Judge Calderon conducted trials and submitted the cases for decision on June 29, 1999, but died on December 31, 1999, without rendering judgment. Procedural History: The complainants were surprised to receive a notice of promulgation from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Argao, Cebu, set for May 15, 2000, by the respondent judge, who was then designated as presiding judge. The complainants questioned why the respondent judge would promulgate a decision from which he had inhibited himself and why only two cases were set for promulgation instead of five. The respondent judge stated that it was an order from his superior and to wait for the next notice. On May 29, 2000, the respondent judge proceeded with the promulgation of a Decision dated November 19, 1999, convicting the complainants, despite their counsel's arguments that the judge who heard the case had died and the respondent judge had inhibited himself. The respondent judge denied the complainants' motion to nullify the decision and ordered their arrest. The complainants filed a petition for certiorari with the Regional Trial Court (RTC), which issued a preliminary mandatory injunction quashing the arrest warrant and ordering another judge to take over the cases and render a new decision. A PNP Crime Laboratory report indicated that the signatures of the late Judge Calderon on the decision were forged. The Petition: The complainants contended that the respondent judge was guilty of ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and serious irregularity, and was presumed to be the author of the forged signature. They prayed for his dismissal from the service. The respondent judge denied the charges, asserting that the decision was personally prepared and signed by the late Judge Calderon and left with the Clerk of Court. He claimed his participation was a ministerial duty to enforce the decision. The respondent also argued that the motion to nullify was not the proper remedy and that the decision had become final and executory.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law by promulgating a decision in cases from which he had previously inhibited himself. Whether a decision penned by a deceased judge can be validly promulgated by another judge who takes over the sala. Whether the respondent judge's actions constituted dereliction of duty, ignorance of the law, grave misconduct, and serious irregularity; and whether the charges against Piedad and Gonzales should be dismissed.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent judge guilty of gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law and ordered him to pay a fine of ₱20,000. The charges against Clerk of Court Secundino Piedad and Court Stenographer Leonisa Gonzales were dismissed for lack of merit.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent judge promulgating a decision from which he had inhibited himself: The Court held that the respondent judge committed gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. It emphasized that a judge who previously inhibited himself from a case should refrain from acting thereon to avoid tainting the Court's good name. The respondent judge's claim that his participation was merely a ministerial duty was rejected, especially since he had previously inhibited himself. The Court reiterated that a judge's designation to a sala does not automatically lift a previous inhibition in relation to specific cases. The Court rejected the respondent judge's assertion that his role was merely ministerial, stating that the designation as Presiding Judge did not lift his prior inhibition. He should have referred the matter to his Executive Judge and assigned another judge to render judgment. On the issue of a deceased judge's decision being promulgated by another judge: The Court ruled that a judge who takes over the sala of another judge who died during office cannot validly promulgate a decision penned by the latter. Promulgation signifies that the judge who signed the decision continued to support it, which is impossible if the judge is deceased. Decisions promulgated after the judge who penned them has vacated office (due to death, retirement, or promotion) are null and void. The Court cited Jimenez v. Republic and People v. Garcia to support the principle that a judgment must be duly signed and promulgated during the incumbency of the judge whose signature appears thereon. The Court clarified that a judgment becomes legally effective only from the moment of its promulgation, requiring the presence of the accused and the judge. This provision for promulgation by the clerk of court pertains only to temporary physical absence, not cessation of office. Thus, if the judge who signed the decision is no longer in office, another judge cannot promulgate it. On the issue of the respondent judge's actions and the dismissal of charges against Piedad and Gonzales: The Court agreed with the Court Administrator and Executive Judge Perez that the charges against Clerk of Court Secundino Piedad and Court Stenographer Leonisa Gonzales should be dismissed for lack of substantial evidence. Their testimonies and affidavits indicated they were merely implementing court orders or performing their duties.
Main Doctrine
A judge who previously inhibited himself from a case cannot validly promulgate a decision therein, even if designated as acting presiding judge, as such action constitutes gross misconduct and gross ignorance of the law. Furthermore, a decision penned by a deceased judge cannot be promulgated by another judge who takes over the sala, as promulgation signifies that the judge who signed the decision continued to support it, which is impossible if the judge is deceased.