MAXIMINO BALAYO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MAMERTO M. BUBAN, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 18, TABACO, ALBAY, RESPONDENT.

Balayo versus Buban

The Case

This is an administrative case filed by Maximino Balayo against Judge Mamerto M. Buban, Jr., the presiding judge of a Regional Trial Court branch in Tabaco, Albay. Balayo was the defendant in a civil case for recovery of possession, an accion publiciana, that was decided by the respondent judge. Balayo charged the judge with four things: failure to decide the case within the reglementary period, falsification of public documents, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and gross ignorance of the law. The case matters because it draws a bright line between a judge's administrative liability for delay, which is real and sanctionable, and the remedy for a wrong judgment, which is appeal and not an administrative complaint.

Procedural History

The matter began as a complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court against the respondent judge. The Supreme Court referred the complaint to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the judge be fined five thousand pesos for his failure to seasonably decide the civil case, and that the other charges be dismissed on the ground that the same matters were already involved in the appeal taken by the complainant to the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court then resolved the administrative case in its own original jurisdiction, adopting the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

Maximino Balayo was the defendant in a civil case for accion publiciana assigned to the sala of Judge Buban. The case was submitted for decision sometime in November 1995. The judge decided it only on March 24, 1997, well beyond the period fixed by law.

Unhappy with the adverse decision, Balayo attacked it through an administrative complaint. He alleged that the judge relied heavily on the testimony of a certain Nelson Carritas, who, according to him, never testified in the civil case, was never subpoenaed, and never presented any documentary evidence. He alleged that the judge referred to certificates of title and documentary evidence that were never shown or marked in court. He alleged that the judge relied on hearsay testimony about an alleged admission made at the barangay office, when no such proceedings were had and he had signed no minutes. He also pointed to an inconsistency: the decision referred to titles issued in the 1930s, yet also to titles issued pursuant to land registration proceedings filed in the 1970s.

Judge Buban admitted that the civil case was decided beyond the reglementary period. He explained that the delay was due to his designation as acting presiding judge of another vacant sala, and he apologized and promised not to repeat the infraction. On the other charges, he explained that the reference to Nelson Carretas was an error in phraseology committed through inadvertence and without malice. Carretas had actually testified in a separate cadastral case for reconstitution of title, where he presented the pre-war salvaged list of original certificates of titles, and the judge had been the acting presiding judge of that branch. The judge also stressed that the complainant had already perfected his appeal to the Court of Appeals, and that the complaint was therefore premature.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Buban is administratively liable for failure to decide the civil case within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the charges of falsification of public documents, violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, and gross ignorance of the law may be entertained while the appeal from the same decision is pending before the Court of Appeals.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15, paragraph 1, of Article VIII of the Constitution provides:

All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

This fixes the three-month period for the regional trial court and is the constitutional basis for the judge's liability for delay.

Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

This is the ethical duty that implements the constitutional mandate and that the respondent judge admitted violating.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Judge Buban is administratively liable. He himself admitted that the civil case was submitted for decision in November 1995 but was decided only on March 24, 1997. The Court held that his designation as acting presiding judge of another sala was insufficient to justify the delay, because he could have asked for an extension of the period within which to decide the case. The Court stressed that delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary, and that failure to decide promptly constitutes gross inefficiency warranting administrative sanction. It fixed the fine at five thousand pesos as commensurate to his failure to seasonably decide the one case.

On the second issue, the Court held that the other charges must be dismissed because they are premature. The Court ruled that disciplinary proceedings and criminal actions against judges are not complementary or suppletory to, or a substitute for, the judicial remedies which are available. Resort to judicial remedies, as well as the entry of judgment in the corresponding action or proceeding, is a prerequisite for the taking of administrative, civil, or criminal actions against the judges concerned. Since an appeal from the decision was pending before the Court of Appeals and that appeal was likely to deal with the same issues, the filing of the charges was premature. The Court explained that judges should be free from intimidation and the fear of sanctions for acts done in the performance of their duties, and that prosecution of a judge is justified only if there is a final determination by a competent court of the manifestly unjust character of the challenged judgment, and evidence of malice or bad faith, ignorance, or inexcusable negligence in rendering it.

Doctrine

A judge must decide cases within the period fixed by the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants administrative sanction. The excuse of heavy workload or designation to another sala does not justify the delay, because the judge may ask for an extension of the period.

Disciplinary and criminal actions against a judge are not a substitute for the judicial remedies of appeal or other review. Resort to those remedies, and the final determination of the challenged judgment, is a prerequisite to administrative, civil, or criminal liability. A judge may be held liable only upon a final showing that the judgment was manifestly unjust, coupled with evidence of malice, bad faith, ignorance, or inexcusable negligence.

Disposition

The Court imposed a fine of five thousand pesos on Judge Buban for his failure to decide the civil case within the reglementary period, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely, and dismissed the other charges of the complainant.

Remember This

Memorize this line: disciplinary and criminal actions against judges are not a substitute for judicial remedies, and resort to those remedies is a prerequisite to administrative liability. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between delay, which is administratively punishable, and an erroneous judgment, which must first be appealed before the judge may be held administratively or criminally accountable.