1.    Present administrative matter arose from the judicial audit conducted on March 12 and 13, 2013, of Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, then presided by Judge Bonifacio M. Macabaya (Judge Macabaya).

In a Memorandum 1 dated April 17, 2013, the audit team found that out of the 573 cases examined by it, (1) 69 cases were submitted for decision but have yet to be decided despite the lapse of the 90-day period [as mandated by par. 1, Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution]; (2) 33 cases with pending incidents were not yet resolved despite the lapse of the reglementary period to resolve them; and (3) 155 cases were dormant and unacted upon for a considerable length of time.

He insisted that the administrative charges against him were made without notice and hearing, hence violative of his right to due process.

What is the essence of due process?

It is axiomatic that due process requires nothing else but the opportunity to be heard -by no means does it require a formal, trial-type hearing. Thus we held in FIO Ledesma v. Court of Appeals:

Due process, as a constitutional precept, does not always and in all situations require a trial-type proceeding. Due process is satisfied when a person is notified of the charge against him and given an opportunity to explain or defend himself In administrative proceedings, the filing of charges and giving reasonable opportunity for the person so charged to answer the accusations against him constitute the minimum requirements of due process. The essence of due process is simply to be heard, or as applied to administrative proceedings, an opportunity to explain one's side, or an opportunity to seek a reconsideration of the action or ruling complained of.


2.    Using the facts in No.1, decide with reason.


WHEREFORE, Judge Bonifacio M. Macabaya, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, Misamis Oriental, is hereby found GUILTY of: (1) gross misconduct for his repeated failure to comply with the directives of the Office of the Court Administrator and this Court; and (2) gross ignorance of the law and procedure.


3.    How would a judge consider a resolution of the Court?


Judge Macabaya ought to be reminded that:

A resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak  in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive. This contumacious conduct of refusing to abide by the lawful directives issued by the Court has likewise been considered as an utter lack of interest to remain with, if not contempt the system.


4.    Explain the principle Justice delayed is Justice denied.


The Supreme Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.

The office of the judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the discharge of official duties. Section 15 ( 1 ), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to 'dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.' Judges must closely adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to preserve the integrity, competence, and independence of the judiciary and make the administration of justice more efficient. Time and again, we have stressed the need to strictly observe this duty so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts. Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics [exhort] judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their courts, to wit:

6. PROMPlNESS He should be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied.

7. PUNCTUALITY He should be punctual in the performance of his judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys is of value and that if the judge is unpunctual in his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Ricardo Del Poso y Dela Cerna Vs. People of the Philippines G.R No. 210810. December 7, 2016 The victim, VVV was given by her biological mother to the petitioner when she was 7 years old and the latter then acted as her guardian. On September 10, 2005, when VVV was 9 years old, petitioner ordered her to attend to petitioner's photocopying          business. While attending the business, VVV fell asleep. When petitioner saw VVV asleep, the former became furious and laid VVV on top of an ironing board and placed a heated flat iron on her. When VVV tried to evade the heat emanating from the flat iron, her forehead, right elbow, left cheek, left buttock and back got burned. Thereafter, petitioner got her down from the ironing board and ordered her to sleep. The following morning, petitioner's wife saw the burns on VVV and told petitioner not to do it again. Later on, VVV went to her Lola Ma. Luisa to watch TV and the latter, and several other...
Read more

JR HAULING SERVICES AND OSCAR MAPUE, PETITIONERS, VS. GAVINO L. SOLAMO, RAMIL JERUSALEM, ARMANDO PARUNGAO, RAFAEL CAPAROS, JR., NORIEL SOLAMO, ALFREDO SALANGSANG, MARK PARUNGAO AND DEAN V. CALVO, RESPONDENTS.

Image
G.R. No. 214294 I What is the quantum of proof required in illegal dismissal cases? The quantum of proof required is merely substantial evidence - which only entails evidence to support a conclusion, "even if other minds, equally reasonable, might conceivably opine otherwise." II Are affidavits sufficient to establish substantial evidence in labor cases? Explain.  Yes, in labor cases, affidavits may be sufficient to establish substantial evidence. The rules of evidence prevailing in courts of law do not control proceedings before the labor tribunals where decisions may be reached on the basis of position papers, accompanied by supporting documents, including affidavits of witnesses, and other allied pleadings. III What is the weight of an affidavit of witness in labor case? A notarized document carries the evidentiary weight conferred upon it with respect to its due execution. It has in its favor the presumption of regularity, which may only be rebutted by evidence so clear, ...
Read more

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018

Marcelo G. Saluday Vs. People of the Philippines G.R. No. 215305. April 3, 2018 On 5 May 2009. Bus No. 66 of Davao Metro Shuttle was flagged down by Task Force Davao of the Philippine Army at a checkpoint near the Tefasco Wharf in Ilang, Davao City. SCAA Junbert M. Buco (Buco), a member of the Task Force, requested all male passengers to disembark from the vehicle while allowing the female passengers to remain inside. He then boarded the bus to check the presence and intercept the entry of any contraband, illegal firearms or explosives, and suspicious individuals. SCAA Buco checked all the baggage and personal effects of the passengers, but a small, gray-black pack bag on the seat at the rear of the bus caught his attention. He lifted the bag and found it too heavy for its small size. SCAA Buco then looked at the male passengers lined outside and noticed that a man in a white shirt (later identified as petitioner) kept peeping through the window towards the direction of the b...
Read more