JOSE PEÑALOSA, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. ALFREDO A. ROSERO, MUNICIPAL JUDGE, CABUSAO, CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENT.

Peñalosa versus Rosero

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Jose Peñalosa against Municipal Judge Alfredo Rosero of Cabusao, Camarines Sur. The complainant charged the respondent judge with serious misconduct, falsification, inefficiency, and ignorance of the law, arising from the delayed promulgation of a decision of acquittal and from alleged irregularities in his monthly reports of cases. The case matters because it draws the line between bad faith, which must be proved, and simple negligence in the performance of judicial functions, which the Supreme Court may sanction by admonition even in the absence of malice.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court. The Court referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the Court of First Instance of Camarines Sur for investigation, report, and recommendation. Hearings were scheduled, but the complainant and his counsel repeatedly sought postponements and failed to appear despite the court's warning that the case would be dismissed without prejudice. The investigating judge thereafter returned the records to the Supreme Court and recommended dismissal for the complainant's lack of interest. The case thus reached the Supreme Court as an original administrative proceeding, and the Court resolved it on the records and the recommendation of the Court Administrator.

Facts

Judge Rosero was designated to try two criminal cases against Ruben Aureus, one for slight physical injuries and one for grave oral defamation, pending in the Municipal Court of Libmanan, Camarines Sur, because the regular judge had inhibited himself. The cases were jointly submitted for decision on April 5, 1976. The respondent rendered his decision of acquittal on June 15, 1976, but the decision was promulgated only on November 4, 1976.

The respondent explained that after deciding the cases, his handwritten notes of the proceedings could no longer be located, and he presumed they had been mixed up with the records of the Cabusao court. The notes surfaced only in the middle of October 1976, after which he at once set the decision for promulgation. He also cited the lack of a clerk and other personnel for almost three years, and the burden of hearing cases in Libmanan in addition to his own court.

On the charge of drinking with party litigants, the respondent denied the allegation. He recounted that on the afternoon of August 23, 1976, the complainant insistently pressed him to sign a prepared certification of good moral character, which he refused because he had met the complainant only that day. On the charge of misleading the Court through his monthly reports, he explained that the entry showing the slight physical injuries case as still pending trial was a clerical error in the numbering of the case, which should have read as another case actually being tried during those months, and that he corrected the error in his November 1976 report.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of serious misconduct for allegedly drinking liquor in public and with party litigants.
• Whether or not the respondent judge misled the Supreme Court through his monthly reports of cases.
• Whether or not the respondent judge is liable for the delay in the promulgation of his decision of acquittal.

Applicable Provisions

Section 11, Article X of the New Constitution, which the respondent invoked in his defense, provides:

Upon effectivity of this Constitution, the maximum period within which a case or matter shall be decided or resolved from the date of its submission, shall be eighteen months for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all inferior collegiate courts, and three months for all other inferior courts.

This provision fixes the period for deciding a case, and the respondent argued that he had decided the cases well within it, so that the later promulgation did not violate the Constitution.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the charge of serious misconduct for allegedly indulging in public and habitual drinking was not substantiated, and the respondent cannot be held liable for it.

On the second issue, the Court likewise found that the charge of having misled the Court in the monthly reports was not substantiated. The respondent's explanation of a clerical error in the numbering of the case, promptly corrected, was accepted.

On the third issue, the Court held that the failure to immediately promulgate the decision of acquittal is undisputed and cannot be disregarded. The liberty and reputation of the accused were at stake, and in unduly delaying the promulgation, the respondent in effect prolonged the agony of the accused. While it cannot be said that he acted in bad faith, he was negligent in the performance of his judicial functions, particularly in the keeping of his notes, which resulted in the delay of the administration of justice. His explanation does not absolve him from responsibility for his subordinate's failure to properly take care of the records of the case. Such negligence, even if not tainted with malice, deserves proper sanction.

Doctrine

First, administrative charges against a judge must be supported by evidence; mere conjecture, absent proof of bad faith or ill motive, cannot establish serious misconduct or falsification.

Second, a judge is responsible for the prompt administration of justice. Delay in the promulgation of a decision, even without malice, constitutes negligence in the performance of judicial functions and warrants sanction, because the liberty and reputation of the accused are at stake.

Third, a judge is answerable for the failure of his subordinates to properly keep the records of cases, and such negligence may be sanctioned even if not tainted with malice.

Disposition

The charges of serious misconduct and misleading the Court were dismissed for lack of substantiation, but Judge Alfredo Rosero was admonished to be more careful in the discharge of his duties, with a warning that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that negligence in the performance of judicial functions, even without bad faith, deserves sanction, and a judge is responsible for his subordinates' care of records. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between bad faith and simple negligence in administrative liability of judges, and the duty of prompt promulgation of decisions.