ILUMINADO S. ESPINAS, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. PERFECTO QUICHO, RESPONDENT.

On January 15, 1970, this Office received a 3rd indorsement of the Department of Justice, dated December
18, 1969, forwarding a letter-complaint of Iluminado
S. Espinas, dated June 1, 1969, preferring
administrative charges against Honorable Perfecto Quicho,
District Judge of the Court of First Instance of Albay,
as well as the latter’s 2nd indorsement, dated
September 30, 1969, by way of answer to said complaint, and complainant’s letter-rejoinder
thereto, of November 15, 1969.  Soon
thereafter, or by resolution of this Court dated January 26, 1970, the matter
was referred to Justice Jose N. Mendoza of the Court of Appeals for
investigation, report and recommendation, which was incorporated in a
“resolution” dated July 23, 1970, and filed with the Supreme Court on
August 5, 1970, recommending that the charges preferred against respondent
Judge be dismissed for failure to prosecute on the part of the complainant.

It appears that when the case was called for hearing before Justice
Mendoza, on March 30, 1970,
only Judge Quicho appeared.  Thereupon, Justice Mendoza resolved to
postpone the hearing to June 8,1970, at 9:30 a.m., with the warning that,
should the complainant still not show up on the latter date, no further
postponement would be granted.  This
notwithstanding, complainant failed once more to appear at the scheduled
hearing, on June 8, 1970,
without giving any explanation therefor.  After
waiting for him, in vain, up to 10:00 a.m. the investigator concluded
that complainant had lost interest in prosecuting the case, and, accordingly,
recommended its dismissal.

The basic letter-complaint of June 1, 1969, appears to have been written by one of the
parties in Land Registration Case No. N-352 of the Court of First Instance of Albay, entitled “Felipe Y. Gutierrez, Applicant, Iluminado Espinas, Oppositor,” which was allegedly submitted for decision
on October 15, 1966, and
decided adversely to Espinas on October 11, 1967.  The latter avers that he believes he lost
that case by reason of the fact that he had not complied “with a request
of said Judge”; that it took respondent Judge much more than the 90 days
permitted by the regulations to decide the case; and that, notwithstanding his
“pending cases undecided or untouched even after the expiration of 90
days, he received his pay, x x x .”  Complainant, likewise, alleges that there are
“common rumors” to the effect that respondent Judge fraternizes with
lawyers who have cases pending in his court and even goes with them to
“nightspots” and that these lawyers have been favored in respondent’s
decisions.

In his 2nd indorsement of September 30, 1969, respondent states
that the delay in disposing of said Land Registration Case No. N-352 was due to
the inadequacy of his clerical staff and the lack of legal aid, despite representations
made by him in 1966, 1967 an 1968; that he had no branch clerk of court for
almost two years, his former deputy clerk
of court having been promoted clerk of court and none of his remaining
personnel being a lawyer who could be designated as acting branch clerk of
court until 1968; that, up to the present, respondent has no legal researcher;
and that it was only during the year 1969 that the positions of two docket
clerks, in the branch presided over by him, had been filled up.  Respondent, likewise, denied, as false and
mischievous, the charge that he fraternizes with lawyers who have cases pending
in his sala; that he has favored them in his
decisions; and that complainant had lost Case No. N-352 owing
to his failure to comply with a request allegedly made by respondent.

Considering that the present charges have been filed almost three
years after the rendition of the decision complained of; that complainant has
not introduced any evidence in support of his allegations of fact concerning
respondent’s behavior and his alleged improper motive in rendering against him
the decision in Land Registration Case No. N-352 of the Court of First Instance
of Albay; and that the matter of collection of
respondent’s emoluments notwithstanding the existence of several cases pending
decision for over 90 days is the subject matter of Administrative Case No.
138-J against respondent herein, the Court believes that the charges of
complainant herein should be, as they are hereby, dismissed, without prejudice
in such action is may be taken in said
Administrative Case No. 138-J, as regards the collection of respondent’s
emoluments, despite said cases pending decision for over 90 days.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal, Zaldivar, Fernando, Barredo, Villamor, and Makasiar, JJ., concur.

Castro and
Teehankee, JJ., did not take part.