Sanchez vs. Vestil

Failure to decide 114 cases within the ninety-day reglementary period without a granted extension constitutes gross dereliction of duty, and issuance of an ambiguous ex parte order authorizing encumbrance of estate property without specifying the lot and without notice to the other party constitutes grave misconduct warranting suspension and fine.

Augustine A. Vestil was the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, which in 1993 absorbed almost seven hundred cases substantially heard by other judges in Branches 55 and 28. Special Proceedings No. MAN-185 concerned the intestate estate of Jose D. Sanchez, involving Roquita A. Sanchez acting for her minor children and Teogenes P. Sanchez as administrator. On March 2, 1995 the parties entered a compromise agreement covering two parcels in the same locality, a 1,439-square-meter lot and an 8,742-square-meter lot, with the larger parcel to be sold promptly and proceeds divided equally.

On March 2, 1995 Roquita A. Sanchez and Teogenes P. Sanchez entered a compromise agreement in Special Proceedings No. MAN-185, the intestate estate proceedings of Jose D. Sanchez, providing for disposition of estate parcels including a 1,439-square-meter lot and an 8,742-square-meter lot, the latter to be sold within the earliest possible time with proceeds divided equally less expenses and agent's commission. Thereafter Roquita filed an ex parte Motion for Authority to Mortgage Property. By Order dated December 5, 1995 respondent granted the motion, authorizing movant for and in behalf of her minor children to mortgage or encumber the lot situated at Paknaan, Mandaue City under administration, without identifying which Paknaan lot was covered and without showing that Teogenes, the administrator, or complainant was furnished a copy.

According to complainant, the authority contravened the agreement to sell the 8,742-square-meter property, should have been heard in guardianship proceedings, deprived Teogenes of notice and a day in court, and was tainted by partiality, use of respondent's private car in the sale transaction, and receipt of monetary considerations and food from Roquita. Respondent, for his part, denied partiality and graft as malicious and hearsay-based, maintained that only another lot of 1,439 square meters in Paknaan, not the Li-ong property, was authorized, and asserted that no evidence showed permission to use his car. He further denied falsification, pointing to a disclaimer in his certificate of service excepting voluminous inherited cases substantially heard by another judge or lacking transcribed notes, and stated that he had reduced a load once exceeding 1,100 cases to barely 700 by working Saturdays and holidays.

When motions for inhibition alleging lack of notice were filed, respondent denied the motion by Order of May 23, 1996 with warning to Raul Sanchez that contempt powers would be used to uphold court dignity. Complainant then cited Civil Case No. MAN-796, Ariston Perez vs. Marcelino Perez, et al., unacted upon since opposition filed April 27, 1995, and nine criminal cases as examples of matters submitted beyond ninety days. The OCA judicial audit report dated November 12, 1997 inventoried more than 800 cases in Branch 56, including 54 criminal, 34 civil and 26 land registration cases submitted for decision beyond ninety days, plus 24 criminal and 130 civil cases unacted upon for considerable length of time. Respondent belatedly sought extension in a Manifestation and Motion of February 6, 1998, attributing delay to inherited terminal-stage cases without transcripts.

• Grave Misconduct and Partiality: Petitioner argued that respondent showed partiality by authorizing Roquita to mortgage the 8,742-square-meter property despite agreement to sell it promptly and divide proceeds, and by allowing his private car to be used by a litigant in the sale transaction.
• Graft: Petitioner maintained that respondent received monetary considerations and accepted food offered by Roquita Sanchez.
• Gross Ignorance and Unjust Interlocutory Order: Petitioner argued that authority to mortgage for minor children belonged in guardianship proceedings, that the order contravened the agreed sale, and that failure to give notice of the motion and copy of the order deprived Teogenes P. Sanchez of a day in court.
• Falsification of Certificate of Service: Petitioner argued that respondent falsely certified having no case submitted beyond ninety days, citing Civil Case No. MAN-796 and enumerated criminal cases submitted for more than a year without action.

• Denial of Partiality: Respondent argued that the charge was a malicious distortion because only another 1,439-square-meter lot in Paknaan, not the Li-ong property, was authorized, and denied any evidence that Roquita used his private car, noting complainant was merely told or informed.
• Denial of Graft: Respondent maintained there was absolutely no proof of monetary consideration or food, characterizing the food allegation as hearsay admittedly based on being informed.
• Repetition of Prior Discussion: Respondent argued that the gross ignorance charge merely repeated prior matters already addressed in his denial of the inhibition motion.
• No Falsification and Heavy Inherited Caseload: Respondent argued that almost 700 cases substantially heard by other judges were unloaded to Branch 56, transcripts and stenographers were unavailable, his certificate contained an express exception for such inherited cases, one listed case had been resolved and the rest were under study, and he had reduced over 1,100 cases to barely 700 by working Saturdays and holidays without extra pay.

• Gross Dereliction and Certificate of Service: Whether respondent is administratively liable for gross dereliction of duty and falsification for failing to decide numerous cases within ninety days while certifying no such backlog.
• Grave Misconduct in Ex Parte Order: Whether respondent committed grave misconduct by issuing an ambiguous ex parte authority to mortgage estate property without specifying the lot and without notice to the other party.

• Gross Dereliction and Certificate of Service: Yes. Failure to resolve 114 cases within ninety days without granted extension and to report such fact faithfully constitutes gross dereliction warranting sanction.
• Grave Misconduct in Ex Parte Order: Yes. The inaccurate, ambiguous mortgage authority issued without due care and without furnishing the administrator a copy constitutes grave misconduct in performance of judicial duties.

• Gross Dereliction and Certificate of Service: The ninety-day period must be observed by all judges unless additional time is granted upon request explaining delay. The audit established 54 criminal, 34 civil and 26 land registration cases, totaling 114, submitted beyond ninety days, plus numerous unacted cases, belying compliance. Inherited caseload, missing transcripts and good-faith disclaimer do not excuse non-observance, as judges must take notes and decide without waiting for transcription and must seek extension; respondent made no timely request until after the December 3, 1997 Resolution. Failure to decide within the period is gross inefficiency, and collecting salary while certifying no backlog transgresses speedy disposition and constitutes serious misconduct, aggravated here by magnitude and a prior P5,000 fine in PDCP Development Bank vs. Vestil.
• Grave Misconduct in Ex Parte Order: The ex parte motion referred to either Paknaan property adjudicated to Roquita in the project of partition, yet the December 5, 1995 Order failed to indicate which parcel was covered. Having approved the compromise himself, respondent was bound to couch the order with care so the property would be ascertainable, since mistake could prejudice other parties; eventual redemption does not erase the misconduct. The order was also not shown to have been furnished to Teogenes as administrator, contrary to the duty to promulgate and make orders known at the earliest time, to verify service of notices, and to diligently ascertain facts and law unswayed by partisan interest before granting ex parte relief.

• Ninety-day disposition and duty to seek extension — Cases must be decided within ninety days from submission; a judge burdened by heavy caseload who cannot comply must request additional time explaining reasons for delay. The rule was applied to reject inherited cases and missing transcripts as justification where no timely extension was sought.
• Delay as gross inefficiency and serious misconduct — Failure to decide even a single case within ninety days is gross inefficiency warranting administrative sanction, and stating in certificates of service that no case remains beyond ninety days while collecting salary transgresses the people's right to speedy disposition. The audit proof of 114 delayed cases elevated culpability beyond single-case precedents.
• Judicial diligence, accuracy and notice in orders — A judge must diligently ascertain facts and applicable law, draw decisions with care so they accurately reflect conclusions, look beyond party allegations especially on ex parte motions, and promulgate orders to all concerned at the earliest time. The vague mortgage authority and failure to notify the administrator violated these duties.
• Judicial integrity and appearance of impropriety — Official conduct must be free from appearance of impropriety and personal behavior beyond reproach, embodying competence, integrity and independence; prestige of office shall not advance private interests. The ambiguous order favoring one party, coupled with favor allegations and a contempt warning on inhibition, fell short of exacting standards.
• Relative immunity for erroneous orders — A judge may not always face discipline for every erroneous order, but such immunity is not license for negligent, abusive or arbitrary adjudication or misuse of vested powers in disregard of due process. Wanton misuse warranted liability for grave misconduct here.

• "Justice delayed is justice denied. This oft-repeated adage requires the expeditious resolution of disputes." — States the controlling policy requiring seasonable decision of cases and timely requests for extension.
• "Neither good faith nor long, unblemished and above average service in the judiciary can fully justify respondent judge's lapses. The Court cannot countenance undue delay in the disposition of cases which is one of the causes of the loss of faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary and brings it into disrepute." — Rejects mitigation for delay, underscoring public-confidence rationale for sanction.
• "It is not enough that judges write their decisions; it is also important to promulgate and make it known to all concerned." — Defines the notice duty violated by failure to furnish the estate administrator a copy of the ex parte order.
• "In every case, a judge shall endeavor diligently to ascertain the facts and the applicable law unswayed by partisan interests, public opinion or fear of criticism." — Quotes the ethical standard applied to condemn the ambiguous ex parte mortgage authority.

• Office of the Court Administrator vs. Panganiban, A.M. No. RTJ-96-1350, 18 August 1997, 277 SCRA 499 — Controlling authority that false certification of no backlog, even on honest belief salary was earned, is serious misconduct not excused by good faith or long service.
• Centrum Agri-Business Realty Corp. vs. Katalbas-Moscardon, 247 SCRA 145 [1995] — Cited for duty to promulgate orders and make them known to all concerned at earliest possible time.
• Nidua vs. Lazaro, SCRA 58 [1989]; Mangulabnan vs. Judge Tecson, 101 SCRA 810 [1980] — Cited for duty of judge taking cognizance of ex parte motion to make known action taken thereon.
• Fernandez vs. Imbing, 260 SCRA 536 [1996]; Tabao vs. Butalid, 262 SCRA 559 [1996] — Cited for duty to verify notices were sent and received and for liability for culpable negligence in issuing orders without ascertaining facts.
• Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC-Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, AM No. 97-9-278-RTC, July 8, 1998 — Followed for factors fixing penalty for delay, chiefly number of undecided cases and aggravating or mitigating circumstances.
• PDCP Development Bank vs. Vestil, 264 SCRA 367, November 21, 1996 — Cited as prior offense where respondent was fined P5,000 for interfering with coequal court, aggravating present penalty.

• Ninety-day reglementary period, Constitution and Rules of Court — Requires decision of cases within ninety days from submission; applied to find 114 cases delayed and to impose liability for gross dereliction absent granted extension.
• Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Judicial Conduct — A judge should embody competence, integrity and independence; applied to condemn delay, false certification and ambiguous ex parte order.
• Canon 2, Rules 2.00, 2.01 and 2.03, Code of Judicial Conduct — Judge must avoid impropriety and appearance thereof, promote public confidence, and not allow relationships to influence judgment nor lend prestige to private interests; applied to partiality and favor allegations.
• Canon 3, Rule 3.02, Code of Judicial Conduct; Canon 4, Canons of Judicial Ethics — Judge must diligently ascertain facts and applicable law; applied to duty to specify property and verify notice before granting mortgage authority.

Narvasa, C.J., Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Martinez, Quisumbing, Purisima and Pardo, JJ., concur. No separate concurring opinions with additional reasoning appear in the text.