G.R. No. RTJ-02-1719. March 31, 2006. ATTY. JOSE B. TIONGCO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ADRIANO S. SAVILLO, Regional Trial Court, Branch 30, Iloilo City, Respondent.
FACTS

Atty. Jose B. Tiongco filed an administrative complaint against Judge Adriano S. Savillo for gross incompetence and ignorance of the law. The allegations included granting a motion for bail reduction without proper notice, rendering erroneous decisions in three criminal cases, deciding cases beyond the 90-day mandatory period, using intemperate language, not wearing a judicial robe, improperly intervening in cross-examinations, and relying on stenographers for trial details. The complainant, who acted as private prosecutor in some cases, asserted these acts demonstrated bias and incompetence.
Judge Savillo countered the allegations. He justified the bail reduction by citing the conformity of a duly authorized prosecutor. He argued that any alleged errors in his decisions were for appellate courts to review. He admitted delays in two cases but cited a heavy workload and staff oversight, accepting full responsibility. He denied the verbal insult and explained his failure to wear a robe was due to a medical condition (thyrotoxicosis), for which he claimed he had received informal advice. He denied improper intervention, stating his rulings were based on the Rules of Court.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Adriano S. Savillo is administratively liable for the acts complained of.

RULING

Yes, but only for specific infractions. The Court found Judge Savillo guilty of undue delay in rendering decisions and violating Supreme Court directives. His admission of deciding People v. Tuburan and People v. Hormina beyond the 90-day constitutional and statutory period constituted a clear violation, warranting administrative sanction. His explanation of heavy workload and staff failure did not excuse the delay. Furthermore, his failure to wear the prescribed judicial robe without a formal, granted exemption violated Administrative Circular No. 25. His claim of a medical condition and informal advice did not absolve him; a formal request for exemption was required.
However, the other charges were dismissed. The act of granting bail reduction involved the exercise of judicial discretion, not gross ignorance. Alleged errors in judgment are correctible on appeal, not primarily through administrative discipline. The charges of intemperate language and improper intervention were not substantiated by convincing evidence. Consequently, the Court fined Judge Savillo P15,000 for the two offenses. He was also directed to wear his robe or formally seek an exemption. Separately, the Court required Atty. Tiongco to explain why he should not be sanctioned for using intemperate language in his complaint.