March 14, 2008
FACTS
Respondent Judge Rustico Paderanga handled five civil cases, all of which involved complainant Asuncion Reyes.
In a case for partition and recovery of real estate, one of the defendants in that case, Jose Reyes, took active participation in the proceeding – from pre-trial to partial judgment.
Jose moved for the dismissal of the case on the ground of lack of jurisdiction, which Judge Paderanga sustained; thus, that particular case was dismissed.
In another case, Asuncion moved to withdraw deposits from a bank account that was subject of a garnishment order, for the reason that she would be using the excess money in the account to buy medicine and food supplements for her ailing mother.
At first, Judge Paderanga refused to act on Asuncion’s motion to withdraw because there was an objection from Jose, implying that her motion needs to be litigated first.
He (Judge Paderanga) eventually granted her motion after 97 days.
Later, Asuncion discovered that Jose’s counsel, Atty. Hermosisima, was Judge Paderanga’s relative within the fifth civil degree, which led her to suspect that Judge Paderanga was partial in her case.
She then moved for his (Judge Paderanga) inhibition from the case, but he refused.
Hence, Asuncion filed an administrative complaint against Judge Paderanga.
She averred that he is intentionally acting against her, grossly ignorant of the law for granting Jose’s motion to dismiss despite Jose’s active participation, and unduly delaying the resolution of the cases involving her, especially with her motion to withdraw deposits.
Judge Paderanga refuted Asuncion’s charges against him.
ISSUES
- Whether or not Judge Paderanga is guilty of bias.
- Whether or not Judge Paderanga is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
- Whether or not Judge Paderanga is guilty of undue delay.
RULING
1. Whether or not Judge Paderanga is guilty of bias.
NO, Judge Paderanga is NOT guilty of bias.
Mere suspicion of partiality is not enough. There must be sufficient evidence to prove the same, as well as a manifest showing of bias and partiality stemming from an extrajudicial source or some other basis.
He is related to Atty. Hermosisima, only by the fifth degree of affinity, which relationship is not included in Rule 137.
2. Whether or not Judge Paderanga is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
YES, Judge Paderanga is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
It is basic that the active participation of a party in a case pending against him before a court is tantamount to recognition of that court’s jurisdiction and a willingness to abide by the resolution of the case which will bar said party from later on impugning the court’s jurisdiction.
While a judge may not be held liable for gross ignorance of the law for every erroneous order that he renders, it is also axiomatic that when the legal principle involved is sufficiently basic, lack of conversance with it constitutes gross ignorance of the law.
3. Whether or not Judge Paderanga is guilty of undue delay.
YES, Judge Paderanga is guilty of undue delay.
A Motion to Withdraw Deposits is non-litigable; thus, it should have been resolved right away.
The Constitution provides that all lower courts must decide or resolve cases or matters brought before them three months from the time a case or matter is submitted for decision. Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which became effective on June 1, 2004, also provides that judges shall perform all duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
DISPOSITIVE PORTION
WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Rustico D. Paderanga is hereby found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law for, which he is fined ₱20,000.00; and undue delay in resolving a motion and in deciding an appeal, for which he is fined ₱15,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that a more severe penalty will be meted out for the commission of similar offense in the future.
SO ORDERED.
Full text of this decision.
