Facts: This administrative case were commenced by two letters of complaint addressed to the Chief Justice. In those letters, Judge Marcelino L. Sayo Jr. of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 45, was charged with gross misconduct, incompetence, corrupt practices, immorality, undue delay in rendering a decision, making untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service, and habitual tardiness.
The first letter, dated November 19, 1999, was signed and sworn to by Bella Balaguer-Fabro, court interpreter in respondent’s sala who was forced by the judge to leave for whimsical and capricious reasons
The second letter, dated November 23, 1999, was authored by Juanito Roxas, court legal researcher; Eufracio B. Pilipiña, sheriff IV; Merlita M. Decena, court stenographer III; Lina Norma S. Galicinao, court stenographer III; and Christine Salvador, clerk III who complained that the very short period since the appointment of respondent judge, five employees in the said branch were either detailed or transferred to another branch or office without any apparent reason.
On October 29, 1999, the Chief Justice received a similar letter from a “concerned employee” of Branch 45 alleging gross incompetence of Judge Sayo, as demonstrated by his failure to decide cases way beyond the prescribed period and his habitual tardiness (almost past 10:00 a.m.) in coming to court.
Issue: Whether or not the judge is liable for his acts.
Held: The Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to dispose of the court’s business promptly by deciding cases and matters within the required period of ninety (90) days from the date of their submission for decision, as mandated by the Constitution.
Judges should act with dispatch in resolving pending incidents, so as not to frustrate and delay the satisfaction of a judgment. Their inaction or procrastination to act one way or another gives room for suspicion that they are biased. As dispensers of justice, they should act in such a manner as to avoid suspicion, so that faith in the administration of justice may be preserved. Delay in resolving motions and incidents within the reglementary period of 90 days fixed by the Constitution and the law cannot be excused or condoned.
Likewise, respondent cannot use the alleged inefficiency and antagonistic attitude of his staff towards him as a defense. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, as well as to observe high standards of public service and fidelity at all times. The inability of respondent to control and discipline his staff demonstrates his weakness in administrative supervision, an undesirable trait frowned upon by this Court.
0 comments:
Post a Comment