G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-98-1419. October 13, 1998.
ATTY. RAUL A. SANCHEZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE AUGUSTINE A. VESTIL, Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, respondent.

FACTS

Atty. Raul A. Sanchez filed a complaint against Judge Augustine A. Vestil for grave misconduct, graft, gross ignorance of the law, and falsification of his certificate of service. The charges stemmed from the judge’s handling of Special Proceedings No. MAN-185, the intestate estate of Jose D. Sanchez. Specifically, the complainant alleged that the judge showed partiality by granting Roquita A. Sanchez authority to mortgage an estate property, contrary to a compromise agreement that required its sale; allowed his private car to be used by Roquita; received monetary considerations and food from her; and issued an unjust interlocutory order without notifying the other party, Teogenes P. Sanchez. Additionally, the judge was accused of falsifying his monthly certificate of service by falsely attesting that he had no cases pending decision beyond the 90-day reglementary period, when in fact numerous civil and criminal cases remained unresolved beyond that period, some for over a year. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit, which confirmed that 114 cases in the judge’s court had been submitted for decision but remained unresolved beyond the 90-day period.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Augustine A. Vestil is administratively liable for the charges of grave misconduct, graft, gross ignorance of the law, and falsification of his certificate of service, particularly in relation to his failure to decide cases within the reglementary period and his handling of Special Proceedings No. MAN-185.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Vestil guilty of gross dereliction of duty and grave misconduct. The Court emphasized that judges are mandated to decide cases seasonably, and failure to do so constitutes a violation of constitutional rights and judicial ethics. The judicial audit verified that 114 cases had been pending decision beyond the 90-day period, which the judge failed to justify adequately. His defense—that he inherited a heavy caseload and worked on holidays—was deemed insufficient to excuse the delay. Regarding the estate proceedings, the Court found that the judge’s December 5, 1995 Order authorizing Roquita Sanchez to mortgage a property was vague, failed to specify which parcel was involved, and was issued without proper notice to the other party, Teogenes Sanchez, the estate administrator. This demonstrated negligence and a failure to exercise due care. The charges of graft and gross ignorance of the law were not sufficiently proven, but the judge’s overall conduct warranted severe sanction. The Court suspended Judge Vestil from office for one year without pay and fined him P50,000. He was ordered to vacate his office immediately upon receipt of the decision. The OCA was directed to evaluate the 114 undecided cases and recommend measures for their expeditious disposition.