J.A.B. Bulao & Associates

 LEGAL NOTE 0025: PRIMER FOR JUDGES RE  DEADLINE FOR DECIDING/RESOLVING CASES/MOTIONS.

 SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. FORMER JUDGE LEONARDO L. LEONIDA, OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 27, STA. CRUZ, LAGUNA (A.M. NO. RTJ-09-2198, 18 JANUARY 2011, CORONA, C.J) SUBJECT: FAILURE OF JUDGE TO DECIDE CASES WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD. (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS. JUDGE LEONIDA)

x —————————————————————————–x

JUDGE LEONIDA FAILED TO RESOLVE MOTIONS IN TEN (10) CIVIL CASES; DECIDE ELEVEN (11) CRIMINAL CASES, AND TWENTY-SEVEN (27) CIVIL CASES IN BRANCH 27, AND TO DECIDE NINETY-ONE (91) CRIMINAL CASES AND SIXTEEN (16) CIVIL CASES IN BRANCH 74 WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD. WHAT IS HIS OFFENSE AND PENALTY?

JUDGE LEONIDA IS GUILTY OF GROSS INCOMPETENCY AND INEFFICIENCY. SC FINED HIM P50,000.00 PESOS TO BE DEDUCTED FROM HIS RETIREMENT BENEFITS.

WHAT ARE THE EFFECTS OF THE FAILURE OF A JUDGE TO DECIDE A CASE WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD?

IT DEPRIVES LITIGANT OF THE RIGHT TO SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF HIS CASE;

IT MAGNIFIES COST OF SEEKING JUSTICE;

IT UNDERMINES PEOPLE’S FAITH AND CONFIDENCE IN THE JUDICIARY; AND

IT LOWERS ITS STANDARDS AND BRINGS IT TO DISREPUTE.

Precedents have shown that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the reglementary period warrants administrative sanction.  The Court treats such cases with utmost rigor for any delay in the administration of justice; no matter how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case.^[1][14] Not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice; it undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute.^[2][15]

HOW LONG IS THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD?

90 DAYS FROM DATE OF SUBMISSION.

No less than Section 15 (1), Article 8 of the 1987 Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower courts shall be decided or resolved within three (3) months from the date of submission.  The prescribed period is a firm mandatory rule for the efficient administration of justice and not merely one for indulgent tweaking.

WHAT IS THE NATURE OF SUCH DEADLINE?

MANDATORY.

As a general principle, rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and for the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory.^[3][16]

WHAT IS THE BASIS?

THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT AND ADMIN CIRCULAR DATED 15 JANUARY 1999

 In the same vein, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is emphatic in enjoining judges to administer justice without delay by disposing of the court’s business promptly and deciding cases within the period prescribed by law.

Corollary to this, Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15, 1999, requires all judges to scrupulously observe the periods prescribed in the Constitution for deciding cases, because failure to comply therewith violates the constitutional right of the parties to speedy disposition of the cases.^[4][17] Only in certain meritorious cases, that is, those involving difficult questions of law or complex issues, may a longer period to decide the case be allowed but only upon proper application for extension of the period has been made by the concerned judge.^[5][18] 

IF JUDGE FAILS TO DECIDE WITHIN THE REQUIRED PERIOD, WHAT IS HIS OFFENSE?

GROSS INEFFICIENCY.

The Court has always considered a judge’s delay in deciding cases within the prescribed period of three months as gross inefficiency.^[6][21]   Undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the clogging of the court dockets is still the bane of the judiciary.  The raison d’ etre of courts lies not only in properly dispensing justice but also in being able to do so seasonably.^[7][22]

WHAT MUST JUDGES OBSERVE IN CONNECTION WITH SAID DEADLINE?

EFFICIENCY WITH PROBITY.

The administration of justice demands that those who don judicial robes be able to comply fully and faithfully with the task set before them.^[8][24] As frontline officials of the judiciary, judges should, at all times, act with efficiency and with probity.  They are duty-bound not only to be faithful to the law, but likewise to maintain professional competence.  The pursuit of excellence must be their guiding principle. This is the least that judges can do to sustain the trust and confidence which the public reposed on them and the institution they represent. ^[9][25]

LEGAL NOTE 0024: WHAT IS THE ETHICAL STANDARD EXPECTED OF COURT EMPLOYEES.

SOURCE:  OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. CLAUDIO M. LOPEZ (A.M. NO. P-10-2788, 18 JANUARY 2011, CORONA, C.J.) SUBJECT: QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN ADMIN CASES; DEFINITION OF MISCONDUCT AND WHEN IT IS GRAVE. (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS. LOPEZ).

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

WHAT IS THE ETHICAL STANDARD EXPECTED OF COURT EMPLOYEES?

GREATER MORAL RIGHTEOUSNESS AND UPRIGHTNESS.

Once again, we stress that court employees, from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk, being public servants in an office dispensing justice, should always act with a high degree of professionalism and responsibility. Their conduct must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum, but must also be in accordance with the law and court regulations. No position demands greater moral righteousness and uprightness from its holder than an office in the judiciary. Court employees should be models of uprightness, fairness and honesty to maintain the people’s respect and faith in the judiciary. They should avoid any act or conduct that would diminish public trust and confidence in the courts. Indeed, those connected with dispensing justice bear a heavy burden of responsibility.¹¹

LEGAL NOTE 0023: WHAT IS MISCONDUCT AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT? HOW DO YOU PROVE MISCONDUCT AND GRAVE MISCONDUCT?

SOURCE: OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. CLAUDIO M. LOPEZ (A.M. NO. P-10-2788, 18 JANUARY 2011, CORONA, C.J.) SUBJECT: QUANTUM OF EVIDENCE REQUIRED IN ADMIN CASES; DEFINITION OF MISCONDUCT AND WHEN IT IS GRAVE. (BRIEF TITLE: OCA VS. LOPEZ).

x- – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – x

LOPEZ, A COURT PROCESS SERVER WAS FOUND TO BE IN POSSESSION OF MARIJUANA. ADMIN CHARGE WAS FILED AGAINST HIM. SC RULED HE COMMITTED GRAVE MISCONDUCT.

 WHAT IS  MISCONDUCT?

The Court defines misconduct as “a transgression of some established and definite rule of action, more particularly, unlawful behavior or gross negligence by a public officer.”⁸

 WHAT IS GRAVE MISCONDUCT?

The misconduct is grave if it involves any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or to disregard established rules, which must be established by substantial evidence.⁹

As distinguished from simple misconduct, the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law, or flagrant disregard of established rule, must be manifest in a charge of grave misconduct.

WHAT IS CORRUPTION?

Corruption, as an element of grave misconduct, consists in the act of an official or fiduciary person who unlawfully and wrongfully uses his station or character to procure some benefit for himself or for another person, contrary to duty and the rights of others.

 MUST GRAVE MISCONDUCT BE A CRIME?

No.

An act need not be tantamount to a crime for it to be considered as grave misconduct as in fact, crimes involving moral turpitude are treated as a separate ground for dismissal under the Administrative Code.¹⁰

We agree with the findings and recommendation of both the Investigating Judge and the OCA that respondent committed grave misconduct which, under Section 52 (A)(3), Rule IV of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases, is a grave offense punishable by dismissal even for the first offense.

 WHAT IS REQUIRED TO PROVE GRAVE MISCONDUCT.

Only substantial evidence is required.

As correctly pointed out by the Investigating Judge, to sustain a finding of administrative culpability, only substantial evidence is required. The present case is an administrative case, not a criminal case, against respondent. Therefore, the quantum of proof required is only substantial evidence.

WHAT IS SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE?

Substantial evidence is  that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Evidence to support a conviction in a criminal case is not necessary, and the dismissal of the criminal case against the respondent in an administrative case is not a ground for the dismissal of the administrative case. We emphasize the well-settled rule that a criminal case is different from an administrative case and each must be disposed of according to the facts and the law applicable to each case.⁷

=============================================

=============================================

=============================================

 ADDITIONAL NOTES (OCTOBER 2011 CASE):

 SOURCE:  MONICO K. IMPERIAL, JR. VS. GOVERNMENT SERVICE INSURANCE SYSTEM (G.R. NO. 191224, 04 OCTOBER 2011, BRION, J.) SUBJECTS: GRAVE MISCONDUCT; SIMPLE MISCONDUCT, PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS; PENALTIES FOR MISCONDUCT; EXAMPLES OF CLEAR DEFIANCE OF THE LAW AND PROCEDURES (BRIEF TITLE: IMPERIAL VS. GSIS)

 PETITIONER WAS ADJUDGED BY GSIS, SSC AND CA AS GUILTY OF GRAVE MISCONDUCT? WAS THIS RULING CORRECT?

 NO. NO SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE WAS ADDUCED TO SUPPORT THE ELEMENTS OF “CORRUPTION,” “CLEAR INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW” OR “FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF ESTABLISHED RULE” THAT MUST BE PRESENT TO CHARACTERIZE THE MISCONDUCT AS GRAVE.

PETITIONER ONLY COMMITTED SERIOUS LAPSE OF JUDGMENT SUFFICIENT TO HOLD HIM LIABLE FOR SIMPLE MISCONDUCT.

Thus, the petitioner’s liability under the given facts only involves simple misconduct. As Branch Manager of the GSIS Naga Field Office, he is presumed to know all existing policies, guidelines and procedures in carrying out the agency’s mandate in the area.  By  approving the loan applications of eight GSIS Naga Field Office employees who did not fully meet the required qualifications, he committed a serious lapse of judgment sufficient to hold him liable for simple misconduct.

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

BUT PETITIONER COMMITTED SUCH OFFENSE TWICE ALREADY. CAN HE BE NOT CONSIDERED TO HAVE COMMITTED “FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF ESTABLISHED RULE”?

NO. THERE MUST BE DELIBERATE DEFIANCE OF THE RULES. THE CSC’S FINDINGS ON THE PETITIONER’S ACTIONS PRIOR TO THE APPROVAL OF THE LOANS NEGATE THE PRESENCE OF ANY INTENT ON THE PETITIONER’S PART TO DELIBERATELY DEFY THE POLICY OF THE GSIS. FIRST, GSIS BRANCH MANAGERS HAVE BEEN GRANTED IN THE PAST THE AUTHORITY TO APPROVE LOAN APPLICATIONS BEYOND THE PRESCRIBED REQUIREMENTS OF GSIS; SECOND, THERE WAS A CUSTOMARY LENIENT PRACTICE IN THE APPROVAL OF LOANS EXERCISED BY SOME BRANCH MANAGERS NOTWITHSTANDING THE EXISTING GSIS POLICY; AND THIRD, THE PETITIONER FIRST SOUGHT THE APPROVAL OF HIS IMMEDIATE SUPERVISOR BEFORE ACTING ON THE LOAN APPLICATIONS. THESE CIRCUMSTANCES RUN COUNTER TO THE CHARACTERISTIC FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF THE RULES THAT GRAVE MISCONDUCT REQUIRES. 

 XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT IS MISCONDUCT?

AN INTENTIONAL WRONGDOING OR A DELIBERATE VIOLATION OF A RULE OF LAW OR STANDARD OF BEHAVIOR.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHEN IS MISCONDUCT GRAVE?

A MISCONDUCT IS GRAVE WHERE THE ELEMENTS OF CORRUPTION, CLEAR INTENT TO VIOLATE THE LAW OR FLAGRANT DISREGARD OF ESTABLISHED RULE ARE PRESENT.^[1][21] OTHERWISE, A MISCONDUCT IS ONLY SIMPLE.

Misconduct has a legal and uniform definition. Misconduct has been defined as an intentional wrongdoing or a deliberate violation of a rule of law or standard of behavior, especially by a government official.^[2][20] A misconduct is grave where the elements of corruption, clear intent to violate the law or flagrant disregard of established rule are present.^[3][21] Otherwise, a misconduct is only simple.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

 GIVE EXAMPLES OF JURISPRUDENCE WHEN THERE HAS BEEN OPEN DEFIANCE OF A CUSTOMARY RULE.

AS FOLLOWS:

Flagrant disregard of rules is a ground that jurisprudence has already touched upon. It has been demonstrated, among others, in the instances when there had been open defiance of a customary rule;^[4][23] in the repeated voluntary disregard of established rules in the procurement of supplies;^[5][24] in the practice of illegally collecting fees more than what is prescribed for delayed registration of marriages;^[6][25] when several violations or disregard of regulations governing the collection of government funds were committed;^[7][26] and when the employee arrogated unto herself responsibilities that were clearly beyond her given duties.^[8][27] The common denominator in these cases was the employee’s propensity to ignore the rules as clearly manifested by his or her actions.

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

WHAT IS THE PENALTY FOR SIMPLE MISCONDUCT?

SUSPENSION FOR ONE MONTH AND ONE DAY TO SIX MONTHS FOR THE FIRST OFFENSE AND DISMISSAL FOR THE SECOND OFFENSE.

XXXXXXXXXXXXX

BUT PETITIONER HAS COMMITTED THE OFFENSE TWICE. WHY SHOULD HIS PENALTY BE NOT DISMISSAL?

BECAUSE IT IS NOT PROPORTIONATE TO THE NATURE AND EFFECT OF HIS TRANSGRESSION.

The Revised Uniform Rules of the Civil Service (Civil Service Rules) classifies simple misconduct as a less grave offense.  Under Section 52(B) (2), Rule IV of the Civil Service Rules, the commission of simple misconduct is penalized by suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months for the first offense, and dismissal from the service for the second offense. While records show that this is not the petitioner’s first offense as he was previously suspended for one (1) year for neglect of duty, we believe that his dismissal would be disproportionate to the nature and effect of the transgression he committed as the GSIS did not suffer any prejudice through the loans he extended; these loans were for GSIS employees and were duly paid for. Thus, for his second simple misconduct, we impose on the petitioner the penalty of suspension from the lapse of his preventive suspension by GSIS up to the finality of this Decision.^[9][28]

==================