AM 100; (December, 1980) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. 100-MJ December 29, 1980
CANDIDO BULAN, complainant, vs. TEOFILO B. CARDENAS, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Candido Bulan charged respondent Municipal Judge Teofilo B. Cardenas with undue delay in the trial of Criminal Case No. 78 for Serious Physical Injuries, filed in 1962. The case dragged on for over a decade. Complainant alleged that despite repeated requests, respondent Judge failed to set the case for trial. In his defense, Judge Cardenas submitted an affidavit explaining the delays. He stated that hearings were repeatedly postponed at the request of either the complainant, who often claimed his lawyer was absent, or the accused. He further claimed he succumbed to pressure from the local mayor, who insisted on postponements because he needed the complainant at his business.
The case was referred for investigation. The Investigating Judge found that respondent could not be blamed for negligence, as hearings were set but postponed upon the parties’ requests, and the complainant himself contributed to the delay. However, the former Judicial Consultant recommended dismissal from service, citing gross ignorance of the law for violating rules on adjournments and, more seriously, for surrendering judicial independence to a local official.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for the inordinate delay in the disposition of the criminal case.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Court found a willful disregard of Section 3, Rule 22 of the Revised Rules of Court, which limits adjournments. By allowing indefinite postponements over ten years, respondent committed a breach of duty. The Court rejected excuses that the complainant became a fugitive or requested postponements. A crime is an offense against the State, and the prompt disposition of cases is a paramount judicial duty. The delay here was excessive and unjustifiable.
However, the Court did not impose the extreme penalty of dismissal recommended by the Judicial Consultant. It considered mitigating circumstances noted by the Investigating Judge, including the parties’ own requests for postponement. The violation, while serious, was not deemed to stem from gross ignorance of the law, as the applicable rule on adjournments contained some ambiguity. Furthermore, the complainant’s failure to appear at the administrative hearing suggested acquiescence to the initial investigatory findings. Balancing these factors, the Court suspended respondent Judge from office for one year without pay.