538 Phil. 518
CALLEJO, SR., J.:
The complaint stemmed from respondent's Order dated December 4, 2002 suspending indefinitely the proceedings in seven (7) criminal cases for violation of BP 22 filed before his sala by herein complainants against one Hung Ching Ming docketed as Criminal Cases Nos. 4709-4710 and 4745-4749. The order of suspension came as a result of the parties' joint oral manifestation of a compromise agreement.Thus, the instant complaint centers on three motions filed by complainants in Criminal Cases Nos. 4709-4710 and 4745-4749, which respondent failed to act upon:
When Hung Ching Ming's counsel failed to draft the compromise agreement, herein complainants filed a Motion, dated January 15, 2003, for the early decision of the subject criminal cases. Because of the inaction of respondent judge on this motion, the complainants filed a second motion for early resolution dated July 10, 2003, and eventually on August 27, 2003 filed a Motion for Inhibition and Disqualification of respondent. As of the filing of the instant administrative charge, none of the subject motions were acted upon.
From the foregoing factual backdrop, complainants charged the respondent judge with the aforementioned administrative offenses, contending that:
- The indefinite suspension of the proceedings in the subject criminal cases upon mere verbal manifestation of the parties of settlement instead of requiring the parties to submit the compromise agreement, constitute ignorance of the law, bias and prejudice against herein complainants;
- [To] further support the claim of bias and prejudice of the respondent judge, complainants cited an alleged instance when complainant Trefil Umale went to the latter's sala to inquire on the status of the motions but respondent allegedly confronted her in a "loud voice overheard by many court employees."
- The failure of the respondent to act on the two motions for early decision dated [January] 15 and July 10, 2003 as well as the motion for inhibition and disqualification beyond the 90-day period constitute gross neglect of duty;[2]
(1) Motion for Early Decision dated 15 January 2003;In his Comment,[3] respondent judge denied the allegations against him. He explained that it was the parties themselves who manifested that the proceedings be suspended after they agreed to talk about the civil aspect of the case, thus, he issued the Order[4] dated December 4, 2002. Respondent judge pointed out that the suspension of the proceedings was made with the conformity of the public prosecutor, and that he had offered his chambers for the parties' use while he was hearing other cases. He was merely waiting for an appropriate legal move from the complainants to proceed with the case. He stressed that the defense had not yet terminated its presentation of evidence, and as such, it would not have been proper for him to act on the motion for early resolution.
(2) Motion for Immediate Resolution dated 10 July 2003; and
(3) Motion for Inhibition or Disqualification filed on 27 August 2003.
As admitted by respondent, he incurred delay in resolving the motions pending before his sala way beyond the 90-day period fixed by the Constitution and the law. His explanation – that the two (2) motions for early decision are erroneous pleadings – does not absolve him from nonetheless acting on the same within the 90-day deadline, since he simply had to deny it and proceed with the reception of the defense' evidence as he claimed to be proper. On the other hand, the alleged unavailability of the public prosecutor and the volume of cases pressing his attention, granting them to be true, are hardly acceptable to exempt him from being prompt in resolving the pending incidents. The reasons he cited could have earned merit had he sought an extension of time to rule on the motions. x x xFor its part, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) opined that while respondent judge should be held administratively liable for the less serious charge of undue delay in resolving motions, there are "attenuating circumstances" which should be considered in favor of respondent, and thus, a P5,000.00 fine will suffice:
x x x x
Be that as it may, a review of the record bears no trace of ignorance of the law, bias and partiality on the part of respondent to warrant an administrative sanction on that score.
It is noted from the complaint itself that the Order of suspension dated December 4, 2002 was an offshoot of complainant's own oral manifestation of a compromise settlement. If they, indeed, did not agree to the suspension of the proceeding, they should have timely moved for its reconsideration. Records show that it was only when the intended settlement failed that the complainants moved for early decision of the criminal cases, and belatedly prayed for the setting aside of the suspension order.
While complainants attribute error and irregularity in the questioned order, allegedly being tainted with bias and partiality, they miserably failed to prove the same. On the contrary, they withdrew their charge against respondent. Though in principle the said withdrawal does not terminate this administrative case, the same stripped the record of a persuasive showing that, indeed, respondent was motivated by bias in issuing the order of suspension and in failing to act on the subject motions. Mere failure to act on the motions within the prescribed period does not connote bad faith and partiality. Malice and bias are never presumed. The complainants have the burden of proving the allegations in the complaint with substantial evidence. In the absence thereof, charges of bad faith, bias and partiality based on mere suspicion and speculation cannot be given credence.
Recommendation
Whereof, it is respectfully recommended that:
- The instant complaint for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Bias and Partiality and Serious Neglect of Duty against respondent be dismissed;
- Respondent judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr. be found guilty of the less serious charge of undue delay in resolving incidents in his court and fined the amount of eleven thousand pesos (Php11,000.00) and warned that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely.[5]
An inquiry from the Court Management Office, OCA revealed that aside from his regular station, respondent Judge Fadul is the acting presiding judge of MCTC, Lumban-Kalayaan; MCTC, Paete-Pakil-Pangil; MCTC, Siniloan-Famy; MCTC, Sta. Maria-Mabitac, all in the province of Laguna; and MCTC, Infanta-General Nakar; and MTC, Real, both in the province of Quezon.At the outset, the Court stresses that the dismissal or withdrawal of charges and the desistance of witnesses does not automatically result in the dismissal of an administrative case. Affidavits of desistance filed by complainants are looked upon with disfavor; even the withdrawal of the complaint does not have the legal effect of exonerating the respondent from any administrative disciplinary action. It does not operate to divest this Court of jurisdiction to determine the truth behind the matter stated in the complaint, as our disciplinary authority cannot be dependent on, or frustrated by, private arrangements between parties; otherwise, the prompt and fair administration of justice, as well as the discipline of court personnel, would be undermined.[7] However, in such cases, the charge against the respondent judge should still be proven by substantial evidence, which in this case was not established. Thus, we agree with the recommendation of both the Executive Judge and the OCA that the charges of partiality and gross ignorance of the law should be dismissed.
In view of the attenuating circumstances of numerous assignments of respondent judge and the nuances in the subject case brought about by the manifestation of the parties that they are in the process of entering into a settlement with respect to the civil aspect of the case, a fine of P5,000.00 would be appropriate.
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the undersigned respectfully recommend that respondent Judge Nicolas V. Fadul, Jr., MTC, Pagsanjan, Laguna, be found guilty of undue delay in resolving pending incidents in Criminal Case Nos. 4709, 4710 and 4745 to 4749 and be FINED in the amount of P5,000.00 with a warning that a repetition of the same in the future shall be dealt with more severely. It is further recommended that the instant complaint be given a regular administrative matter number in order that it may be reflected in the personal file of respondent judge. The complaint for ignorance of the law, bias and partiality be dismissed for lack of merit.[6]
x x x [T]he alleged unavailability of the public prosecutor and the volume of cases pending in his court, assuming these were true, are also unacceptable reasons for his failure to act promptly in resolving the pending incidents. The reasons he cited could have earned merit had he sought an extension of time to rule on the motions. x x xUnder Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is classified as a less serious charge, punishable by either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.[14] In this case, however, considering that respondent judge has not been previously charged administratively and, as observed by the OCA, has "numerous [court] assignments," the Court finds that the penalty of admonition with stern warning will suffice.
There is nothing on record to show that respondent judge requested from the Court an extension of time to resolve the pending incidents.