7/30/24, 7:51 PM A.M. No.

94-902

Today is Tuesday, July 30, 2024

Constitution Statutes Executive Issuances Judicial Issuances Other Issuances Jurisprudence International Legal Resources AUSL Exclusive

Republic of the Philippines

SUPREME COURT
Manila

SECOND DIVISION

A.M. No. 94-902 March 27, 1995

EMETERIO L. ASINAS, JR. complainant,We use cookies to ensure you get the
vs. best experience on Lawphil.net.
By continuing
JUDGE ERNESTO T. TRINIDAD, Metropolitan to browse
Trial Court, our 63,
Branch site,Makati,
you arerespondent.
agreeing to our use of cookies.
Find out more here.
BIDIN, J.:

In a sworn letter-complaint dated October 1, 1993 Emeterio OK

L. Asinas, Jr. charged respondent Judge Ernesto T.
Trinidad of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati, Branch 63 with (1) inefficiency and neglect in the performance of
duties and (2) knowingly rendering an unjust and unfounded judgment in Criminal Cases Nos. 130338 and 130339
entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Rodolfo Paglinawan, et al" for unjust vexation and malicious mischief.

Complainant is the complaining witness in the aforestated criminal cases. He alleges that although the cases were
tried under the Rules on Summary Procedure, it took respondent judge 5 1/2 years to dispose of the said cases.
Despite repeated follow-ups on complainant's part, the judgment of acquittal was rendered by respondent judge only
on July 22, 1993 or 1 year and 7 months from the time the cases were submitted for decision on October 19, 1991.

On the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust and unfounded judgment, complainant assails the portion of
respondent judge's decision which declares:

The court also doubts his (complainant's) testimony that his camera was destroyed by Paglinawan as
there was no witness to collaborate (sic) his statement or allegation.

Complainant alleges that contrary to the trial court's finding as abovequoted, his testimony on the destruction of his
camera by the accused was corroborated in all respects by prosecution witness Rene Villanueva whose affidavit
dated October 20, 1987 was presented in court as evidence. Villanueva also testified before the court and was duly
cross-examined by the defense.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/feb1995/am_94_902_1995.html 1/4
7/30/24, 7:51 PM A.M. No. 94-902
In his Comment, respondent judge alleges that the delays in the proceedings of the criminal cases in question were
attributable to the parties themselves. According to respondent judge, soon after the cases were filed on December
24, 1987, he directed the accused to file their counter-affidavits in an Order dated January 5, 1988. However, on
January 27, 1988, the accused filed a motion to suspend proceedings and to refer the case to the Department of
Labor. The denial of the motion by respondent judge prompted the filing by the accused of a petition for certiorari
with the Supreme Court which thereafter referred the same to the Court of Appeals. As a result of the pendency of
the petition with the Court of Appeals, and also upon agreement of the parties who were in the process of settling
their labor dispute with the Department of Labor, respondent judge had no other alternative but to suspend the
proceedings of the criminal cases before his court.

After waiting for two years for the outcome of the labor controversy, respondent judge decided that the court could
not wait any longer and commenced hearing the criminal cases on the merits from February 7, 1990 up to
December 4, 1991.

Respondent judge further alleged that after the parties had rested their respective cases, complainant requested
him to defer the resolution of the criminal cases, alleging that the negotiations in connection with the labor dispute
are still ongoing and that any decision that may be rendered in the criminal cases may deter the resolution thereof.

In July 1993, complainant together with the private prosecutor once again approached respondent judge and
informed him that the labor dispute has finally
We usebeen settledtoand
cookies that both
ensure complainant
you get the and the accused, as officers
and members respectively of Nestle Philippines, Inc., have mutually
best experience agreed to withdraw the cases they have filed
on Lawphil.net.
against each other. At this point, complainant and counsel
By continuing allegedly
to browse ourintimated
site, youtheir
are intention, if feasible, to withdraw
the criminal cases filed against the accused. However,
agreeing to inasmuch
our use ofas both parties had already rested their cases,
cookies.
respondent judge nevertheless promulgated the decision
Find outon more
August 2, 1993.
here.
Anent the statement in the decision to the effect that the court doubts the testimony of complainant about the
destruction of his camera assailed by complainant, respondent judge contends that the same was not intended to
create the impression that complainant lied about the destruction of his camera. Rather, the accused were acquitted
for failure of the prosecution to prove their guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

By way of reply to respondent judge's comment, complainant in a letter dated December 10, 1993, vehemently
denied the former's allegation that complainant requested deferment of the resolution of the criminal cases.
Complainant maintains that as early as December 19, 1990, the Supreme Court, in G.R. Nos. 88710-13, had
already ruled that the accused in the aforestated criminal cases have lost their employee status for having engaged
in an illegal strike, and the outcome of the decision in the criminal cases would not have any bearing on the labor
dispute.

In a resolution dated February 23, 1994, this Court referred the instant case to Executive Judge Salvador S. Abad
Santos of the Regional Trial Court of Makati for investigation, report and recommendation.

In a Report dated April 22, 1994, the Investigating Judge found that there was unjustifiable delay on the part of
respondent judge in the resolution of Criminal Cases 130338 and 130339. Even assuming that the delay in the
proceedings was attributable to the parties themselves, Judge Santos took note of the fact that the trial was
terminated on December 4, 1991 but the decision was promulgated only on August 2, 1993 evidently showing that
respondent judge is culpable for unjustifiable delay.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/feb1995/am_94_902_1995.html 2/4
7/30/24, 7:51 PM A.M. No. 94-902
As for the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust and unfounded judgment, the Investigating Judge stated that the
present case is not one where respondent judge failed to consider the facts of the case or even misappreciated the
facts. Rather, it is one where the question of credibility of witnesses rests largerly upon the appreciation of the
evidence by the respondent judge who was in the best position to render judgment thereon.

Thus, the Investigating Judge recommended that respondent judge be reprimanded for unjustifiable delay in
rendering judgment, his culpability to be mitigated by the fact that judgment had been rendered albeit delayed.

In the resolution of this Court dated May 23, 1994, this case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for
evaluation, report and recommendation.

In a Memorandum dated July 8, 1994 Deputy Court Administrator Juanito A. Bernad emphasized that Criminal
Cases Nos. 130338 and 130339 both fail and were tried under the Rules on Summary Procedure, to wit:.

(4) All other criminal cases where the penalty prescribed by law-for the offense charged is
imprisonment not exceeding six months, or a fine not exceeding One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00),or
both, irrespective of other imposable penalties arising therefrom. Provided, however, that in offenses
involving damage to property through criminal negligence, this Rule shall govern where the imposable
fine does not exceed Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00). (Section 1, B (4), Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure). We use cookies to ensure you get the
best experience on Lawphil.net.
In Criminal Case No. 130338, the accused were charged
By continuing with unjust
to browse vexation
our site, punishable with arresto menor or a
you are
fine ranging from P5.00 to P200.00 or both, under the second paragraph
agreeing to our use of cookies.of Article 287 of the Revised Penal Code .
In Criminal Case No. 130339, the accused were Find charged with malicious
out more here. mischief for the destruction of a Kodak
instamatic camera causing damage thereto in the amount of P649.95, punishable with arresto mayor in its minimum
and medium periods, if the value of the damage covered is over P200.00 but does not exceed P1,000.00, under
paragraph 2 of Article 329 of the Revised Penal Code.

Despite the applicability of the Rule on Summary Procedure to the subject criminal cases, it still took the respondent
judge almost four years to terminate the proceedings of these cases. The Deputy Court Administrator, distinguished
between the two types of delay which occurred in this case. He opined that the delay in the proceedings cannot be
attributed to respondent judge but mainly to the several petitions filed by the parties with the Supreme Court, the
Court of Appeals and the Department of Labor.

However, the delay in the resolution of the case is another matter altogether. Under Section 17 of the Rule on
Summary Procedure:

Sec. 17. Judgment. Where a trial has been conducted, the court shall promulgate the judgment not
later than thirty (30) days after the termination of trial.

Under the aforequoted provision, judgment in the criminal cases should have been promulgated not later than thirty
(30) days after the termination of the trial on December 4, 1991, or on January 3, 1992 . Instead, respondent judge
promulgated the decision on August 2, 1993, or after a delay of one (1) year and seven (7) months. Clearly, this
delay is attributable to respondent judge for which he should accordingly be held liable. Failure to decide a case
within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency (Longboan vs. Polig, 186 SCRA 557
[1990], citing the cases of Ubarra vs. Tecson, 134 SCRA 4 [1985]; De Leon vs. Castro, 104 SCRA 241 [1981]; and
In re: Judge Jose F. Madara, 104 SCRA 245 [1981].
https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/feb1995/am_94_902_1995.html 3/4
7/30/24, 7:51 PM A.M. No. 94-902
With respect to the charge of rendering an unjust and unfounded judgment, the Deputy Court Administrator is in
agreement with the Investigating Judge that the charge is unsubstantiated by evidence, as there is nothing in the
complaint to show that the assailed judgment was unreasonable, capricious or indicative of bad faith or malice.

ACCORDINGLY, this Court finds respondent Judge Emerito T. Trinidad of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Makati,
Branch 63 guilty of unjustifiable delay in the resolution of Criminal Cases Nos .130338 and 130119 and hereby
imposes upon him a FINE in the sum of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS, with a warning that a repetition of
the same or similar offenses will be dealt with more severely. The charge of knowingly rendering an unjust and
unfounded judgment is hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, Regalado, Puno and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation

We use cookies to ensure you get the

best experience on Lawphil.net.
By continuing to browse our site, you are
agreeing to our use of cookies.
Find out more here.

https://lawphil.net/judjuris/juri1995/feb1995/am_94_902_1995.html 4/4