G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-99-1461; June 26, 2001 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 97-402-RTJ)
Case Parties: RICARDO DELA CRUZ, complainant, vs. HON. HERMINIA M. PASCUA, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tagudin, Ilocos Sur, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ricardo Dela Cruz, a mayoralty candidate, filed an election protest (Sp. Proc. Case No. 0743-T) before respondent Judge Herminia M. Pascua’s court. The motion for intervention filed by Nena Ocaña and Nelson Cuaresma was denied, prompting them to file a “Petition by Appeal on Certiorari” with the COMELEC (SPR No. 13-95), which was dismissed. In an administrative complaint, Dela Cruz alleged that: (1) Judge Pascua committed falsification by stating in an August 28, 1995 order that the intervenors filed their appeal with the Supreme Court, when it was actually filed with the COMELEC; (2) she violated COMELEC rules by delaying the disposition of the election protest, notably by issuing a December 26, 1995 order archiving the case on the mistaken ground that an appeal was pending with the Supreme Court, causing over six months of delay from August 28, 1995, to February 29, 1996; and (3) she ante-dated a February 8, 1996 order retrieving the case from the archives, as the motion to retrieve was filed only on February 15, 1996. In her comment, Judge Pascua admitted an “honest and innocuous error” in referencing the Supreme Court, claiming she was shown a copy of the intervenors’ petition and believed the appeal was with the High Court. She explained the order was prepared on February 8, 1996, and mailed later, hence not ante-dated. The election protest was later withdrawn by complainant’s counsel. Judge Pascua compulsorily retired on September 18, 1998.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Herminia M. Pascua is administratively liable for her actions in handling the election protest, particularly for inefficiency and negligence resulting in undue delay.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge Herminia M. Pascua is administratively liable for inefficiency. The Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s evaluation and recommendation. Judge Pascua was negligent in issuing the August 28, 1995 and December 26, 1995 orders based on her unfounded perception that an appeal was pending with the Supreme Court, without verifying where the intervenors’ petition was actually filed. This caused a substantial delay in the election protest, from August 28, 1995, to February 8, 1996, violating Section 17(1), Rule 35 of the COMELEC Rules of Procedure, which mandates resolution within six months. Her act of archiving the case did not comply with the conditions under Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92. While there was no proof of corrupt motives, her negligence manifested inefficiency and a failure to maintain professional competence as required by the Code of Judicial Conduct. The allegation of ante-dating was satisfactorily explained. Consequently, Judge Pascua was found guilty of inefficiency and fined Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), to be deducted from her retirement benefits.