G.R. No. RTJ-12-2317; July 25, 2012
Atty. Felino U. Bangalan vs. Judge Benjamin D. Turgano, Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Laoag City

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Felino U. Bangalan, counsel for the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 11140-15, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Benjamin D. Turgano for undue delay in rendering a decision, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and partiality. The civil case was submitted for decision on May 4, 2007, but the judge rendered his decision only on August 8, 2008, exceeding the 90-day constitutional period by over 15 months. Furthermore, a Notice of Appeal and Motion for Execution Pending Appeal filed in October 2008 were resolved only on September 2, 2009. Complainant also alleged dishonesty in the judge’s Certificates of Service and gross ignorance of the law when the judge, in an Order dated November 12, 2009, reversed his own prior Order granting the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, citing an allegedly obsolete doctrine.
In his defense, Judge Turgano attributed the delays to health issues, including transient ischemic attacks and pulmonary problems, and to the deaths of his father and brother during the relevant period. Regarding the reversed order, he maintained he acted pursuant to his interpretation of the Rules of Court, arguing that any error was judicial in nature and the proper remedy was a petition for certiorari, not an administrative case. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted that complainant had indeed filed a successful certiorari petition (CA-G.R. SP No. 111883) with the Court of Appeals, which reinstated the judge’s initial favorable order.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Benjamin D. Turgano is administratively liable for the charges of undue delay, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and partiality.

RULING

The Supreme Court found Judge Turgano administratively liable only for undue delay in rendering a decision and resolving motions. The charges of gross ignorance of the law and partiality pertain to errors in the exercise of his adjudicatory functions. The Court, citing Flores v. Abesamis, reiterated the doctrine that disciplinary proceedings are not substitutes for judicial remedies. Complainant’s recourse for an unfavorable order was through appeal or certiorari, which he successfully pursued in the Court of Appeals. Thus, these charges are not proper subjects of an administrative case. The charge of dishonesty was deemed speculative and unsupported by evidence.
However, the Court found the judge guilty of undue delay. He failed to decide the case within the 90-day constitutional mandate and to resolve pending motions promptly, violating Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. While he cited health and family reasons, he submitted no medical certificates or other evidence to substantiate these claims. Crucially, he did not request an extension of time from the Court, which is the proper procedure when unable to comply with the reglementary period. Undue delay is a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Considering it was his first offense as a mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed the penalty of REPRIMAND with a stern warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.