AM RTJ 00 1601; (November, 2001) (Digest)

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601. November 13, 2001. ELIEZER A. SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Eliezer A. Sibayan-Joaquin charged Judge Roberto S. Javellana with grave misconduct, graft, and gross ignorance of the law. The complaint stemmed from Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 for estafa. Complainant alleged undue delay, as the decision acquitting the accused was rendered ten months after the case was submitted for decision, exceeding the 90-day reglementary period. He further claimed the promulgation was irregular as neither the judge nor the clerk of court was present, and cited impropriety for the judge’s frequent association with the defense counsel, Atty. Vic Agravante, including using the latter’s vehicle.
Respondent judge admitted the delay but cited his heavy workload from handling two salas and health issues. He maintained the promulgation was validly conducted by the Clerk of Court in the presence of the accused, counsel, and prosecutors. He denied any improper association with Atty. Agravante. The case was referred for investigation to Justice Bernardo Abesamis of the Court of Appeals.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Roberto S. Javellana is administratively liable for the charges against him.

RULING

Yes, but only for undue delay in rendering judgment and for conduct unbecoming a judge. The Supreme Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the Investigating Justice.
On the charge of gross ignorance of the law, the Court found no merit. The Investigating Justice correctly held that to warrant disciplinary action, an error must be gross, patent, malicious, or in bad faith. A mere error of judgment is insufficient. The Court found no such gross error in the judge’s actions regarding the promulgation or the decision itself.
However, respondent is liable for undue delay. Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct mandate that cases be decided within three months from submission. Respondent took ten months without seeking a proper extension. While the Court is understanding of heavy caseloads, failure to decide promptly undermines public faith in the judiciary.
Furthermore, respondent is liable for impropriety under Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judges must avoid not only impropriety but also its appearance to promote public confidence in the judiciary’s integrity and impartiality. His close association with a counsel practicing before his court, regardless of actual influence, creates an appearance of partiality that erodes public trust. A judge must be beyond suspicion in both official and private conduct.
The Court DISMISSED the charge for gross ignorance of the law. Respondent was FINED P2,000.00 for undue delay and ADMONISHED to be circumspect in his dealings with lawyers having cases before him, with a warning that repetition will be dealt with more severely.