AM RTJ 01 1641; (May, 2002) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1641. May 9, 2002. Gerry Jaucian vs. Judge Salvacion B. Espinas, Regional Trial Court, Branch 5, Legaspi City.
FACTS
Complainant Gerry Jaucian, a losing mayoral candidate in the 1998 Daraga, Albay elections, filed an election protest seeking a revision of ballots from 114 precincts. Respondent Judge Salvacion B. Espinas, presiding over the case, issued a March 8, 1999 order directing the retrieval and revision of ballots from only 13 precincts, citing an outdated and inapplicable rule from a privately compiled “updated Election Code.” She also initially imposed an incorrect docket fee. Jaucian moved for reconsideration, citing the correct COMELEC rules, but was denied.
Jaucian elevated the matter to the COMELEC via certiorari. The COMELEC En Banc, in a November 9, 1999 resolution, set aside the judge’s orders for being issued with grave abuse of discretion, directed the revision of ballots from all 162 contested precincts (the number having increased from the original 114), and instructed the judge to compute fees using the correct COMELEC Rules of Procedure. Despite the COMELEC’s clear directive and the judge’s presence during its promulgation, she unjustifiably delayed implementing the resolution for several months, taking action only on the appointment of revisors by May 30, 2000.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Salvacion B. Espinas is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and undue delay in the disposition of the election protest case.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Espinas liable for both gross ignorance of the law and undue delay. On gross ignorance, the Court held that a judge is expected to possess more than a cursory acquaintance with laws and procedures, especially in specialized areas like election contests. Judge Espinas’s reliance on an unofficial, privately compiled document instead of the official COMELEC Rules of Procedure and the Omnibus Election Code constituted a blatant disregard of basic and established legal rules. Her error was not a mere lapse in judgment but a gross misapplication of the law, which undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
Regarding undue delay, the Court ruled that the judge’s failure to promptly execute the final and executory COMELEC resolution for several months after its promulgation constituted unreasonable procrastination. This delay aggravated her initial ignorance of the law. Considering her retirement and lack of prior serious infractions, the Court imposed a fine of P20,001.00, to be deducted from her retirement benefits, as a sanction for the serious charges. The penalty serves as a reminder that competence and promptness are non-negotiable judicial duties.