4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 368, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 503

Sibayan-Joaquin vs. Javellana
*
A.M. No. RTJ-00–1601. November 13, 2001.  
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 99–834-RTJ).

ELIEZER A. SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN, complainant,  vs.JUDGE ROBERTO S.

JAVELLANA, Regional Trial Court, Branch 57, San Carlos City, Negros
Occidental, respondent.

Courts; Judges;  Speedy Disposition of Cases;  Any undue delay in the resolution of

cases often amounts to a denial of justice and can easily undermine the people’s faith and
confidence in the judiciary and aware of the heavy caseload of judges, the Supreme Court
has continued to act with great understanding on requests for extension of time to decide
cases.—Section 15, Article XVIII, of the Constitution provides that lower courts have
three months within which to decide cases or matters pending before them from the
date of submission of such cases or matters for decision or resolution. Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct holds similarly by mandating that the disposition of cases
must be done promptly and easonably. Admittedly, respondent judge has taken ten
months to finally

_________________

* THlRD DIVISION.

504

504 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Sibayan-Joaquin vs. Javellana

Admittedly, respondent judge has taken ten months to finally decide Criminal Case
No. RTC-1150 from its submission for decision, a period clearly beyond the ninety-day
reglementary period. He could have asked for an extension of time to decide the case
and explain why, but he did not. Any undue delay in the resolution of cases often
amounts to a denial of justice and can easily undermine the people’s faith and
confidence in the judiciary. Aware of the heavy caseload of judges, the Court has
continued to act with great understanding on requests for extension of time to decide
cases.
Same;  Same;  Bias and Partiality;  Judges, indeed, should be extra prudent in
associating with litigants and counsel appearing before them so as to avoid even a mere
perception of possible bias or partiality.—The Court shares the view and disquisition of
the Honorable Justice. Judges, indeed, should be extra prudent in associating with
litigants and counsel appearing before them so as to avoid even a mere perception of
possible bias or partiality. It is not expected, of course, that judges should live in
retirement or seclusion from any social intercourse. Indeed, it may be desirable, for
instance, that they continue, time and work commitments permitting, to relate to
members of the bar in worthwhile endeavors and in such fields of interest, in general, as
are in keeping with the noble aims and objectives of the legal profession. In pending or
prospective litigations before them, however, judges should be scrupulously careful to
avoid anything that may tend to awaken the suspicion that their personal, social or
sundry relations could influence their objectivity, for not only must judges possess
proficiency in law but that also they must act and behave in such manner that would
assure, with great comfort, litigants and their counsel of the judges’ competence,
integrity and independence.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171399f1196cf0e828e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Grave Misconduct, Graft

and Gross Ignorance of the Law.

The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

     Edwin B. Maquinto for complainant.

VITUG, J.:

In a complaint-affidavit, dated 17 September 1999, Eliezer A. Sibayan-Joaquin

charged Judge Roberto S. Javellana, acting presiding judge of the Regional
Trial Court (“RTC”) of San Carlos City, Branch 57, with grave misconduct in
the performance of official duties, graft and gross ignorance of the law. The
complaint was an
505

VOL. 368, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 505

Sibayan-Joaquin vs. Javellana

offshoot of a case for  estafa,  docketed Criminal Case No. RTC 1150, entitled
“People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Tan y Salazar,” filed by Sibayan-Joaquin
for and in behalf of Andersons Group, Inc., against Romeo Tan before the San
Carlos City RTC. Complainant averred that there was an undue delay in the
rendition of judgment in the aforenumbered criminal case, the decision, dated
16 July 1999, that had acquitted the accused Romeo Tan, having been rendered
only on the tenth month after the case was submitted for decision.
Complainant further claimed that neither respondent judge nor his clerk of
court was present during the promulgation of the decision in contravention of
Section 6, Rule 120, of the Rules of Court. Respondent judge was also cited for
impropriety by complainant because he was often seen with Attorney Vic
Agravante, counsel for the accused, whose vehicle respondent judge would even
use at times.
Required to comment on the complaint, respondent judge admitted that the
decision in Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 was rendered beyond the ninety-day
reglementary period but attributed the delay to his voluminous workload.
Respondent was handling two  salas,his original station, RTC Branch 59,
designated as being a special court for heinous crimes, and RTC Branch 57. He
explained that he was suffering from hypertension which resulted in his
frequent requests for leave. Respondent judge maintained that the decision in
Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 was validly promulgated. He denied any
irregularity in the promulgation of the decision which was duly conducted by
Atty. Tarjata Ignalaga, Clerk of Court  VI,  of the Regional Trial Court of San
Carlos City, Negros Occidental, in the presence of accused Romeo Tan y
Salazar and his counsel, Atty. Agravante, along with Provincial Prosecutor
Estefanio Libutna, Jr., and private prosecutor Atty. Edwin Maquinto.
Respondent judge denied any close association with Atty. Agravante.
The matter was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator (“OCA”) for
evaluation. In its report of 09 September 2000, the OCA recommended that an
investigation be conducted in order to afford the parties the opportunity to
substantiate their respective claims. In its resolution of 23 October 2000, the
Court adopted the
506

506 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sibayan-Joaquin vs. Javellana

OCA’s recommendation and assigned the case to Associate Justice Bernardo

Abesamis of the Court of Appeals.
In due time, Justice Abesamis submitted his report, dated 25 May 2001,
finding respondent judge to have indeed failed to decide Criminal Case No.
RTC-1150 within the ninety-day reglementary period. The Investigating
Justice found no irregularity, however, in the promulgation of the decision. He
also found no gross ignorance of the law on the part of respondent. In order to

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171399f1196cf0e828e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

impose disciplinary action on judges, Justice Abesamis concluded, it should be

shown that the error or mistake invoked was gross or patent, malicious,
deliberate or in bad faith, and that a mere error of judgment would not be a
ground for disciplinary action. Finally, the Investigating Justice held
respondent judge accountable for impropriety for his close association with
Atty. Agravante.
The Investigating Justice ended his report to the Court by recommending
thusly:
“WHEREFORE, after due investigation, and in consideration of the foregoing
discussions, it is most respectfully recommended to the Honorable Supreme Court that:

“1) The charge of gross ignorance of the law against respondent judge be
DISMISSED for lack of merit.
“2) Respondent judge be held administratively liable for:

“a) failure to render judgment in Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 within the period
prescribed by law (in violation of §15, ARTICLE VIII OF THE PHILIPPINE
CONSTITUTION, CANON 1, RULE 1.02, and CANON 3, RULE 3.05 OF THE
Code of Judicial Conduct); and
“b) engaging in activities having the appearance of impropriety which unduly raise
suspicion and distrust among the people in the administration of justice (in
violation of CANON 2, RULE 2.01 AND RULE 2.03 OF THE CODE OF
JUDICIAL CONDUCT);

3) “  Respondent JUDGE ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA be ADMONISHED, with 1

a
WARNING that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.”

________________
1 Report and Recommendation, dated 25 May 2001, pp. 22–23.

507

VOL. 368, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 507

Sibayan-Joaquin vs. Javellana

Section 15, Article XVIII, of the Constitution provides that lower courts have
three months within which to decide cases or matters pending before them
from the date of submission of such cases or matters for decision or resolution.
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct holds similarly by mandating that the
disposition of cases must be done promptly and seasonably. Admittedly,
respondent judge has taken ten months to finally decide Criminal Case No.
RTC-1150 from its submission for decision, a period clearly beyond the ninety-
day reglementary period. He could have asked for an extension of time to
decide the case and explain why, but he did not. Any undue delay in the
resolution of cases often amounts to a denial of justice and can easily
undermine the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. Aware of the
heavy caseload of judges, the Court has continued to act with great
understanding on requests for extension of time to decide .cases.
The Investigating Justice has seen impropriety on the part of respondent
judge in his close association with a counsel for a litigant; thus:
“Giving respondent judge the benefit of the doubt, and presume that his close
associations with lawyers practicing within the territorial jurisdiction of his court are all
normal and do not in any way unduly influence him in the discharge of his sworn duties,
the Court cannot just leave respondent judge’s acts and consider them proper.
“It is expressly provided under the CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT that:

“‘(  ‘CANON  2.—A JUDGE SHOULD AVOID IMPROPRIETY AND THE APPEARANCE OF
IMPROPRIETY IN ALL ACTIVITIES.
‘x x x      x x x      x x x
‘Rule 2.01.—A Judge should so behave at all times as to promote public confidence in the
integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.
‘x x x      x x x      x x x
‘Rule 2.09.—A Judge shall not allow family, social or other relationships to influence judicial
conduct or judgment. The prestige of judicial office shall not be used or lent to advance the private
in

508
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171399f1196cf0e828e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

508 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Sibayan-Joaquin vs. Javellana

terests of others to convey the impressions that they are in special position to influence
the judge.’
“Hence, a judge’s official conduct and his behavior in the performance of judicial
duties should be free from the appearance of impropriety and must be beyond reproach.
One who occupies an exalted position in the administration of justice must pay a high
price for the honor bestowed upon him, for his private as well as his official
conduct  must at all times be free from the appearance of impropriety. Because
appearance is as important as reality in the performance of judicial functions,  like
Caesar’s wife, a judge must not only be pure but also beyond suspicion. A judge has the
duty to not only render a just and impartial decision, but also render it in such a manner
as to be free from any suspicion as to its fairness and impartiality, and also as to the
judge’s integrity.
“It is obvious, therefore, that while judges should possess proficiency in law in order
that they can competently construe and enforce the law, it is more important that they
should act and behave in such2 a manner that the parties before them should have
confidence in their impartiality."

The Court shares the view and disquisition of the Honorable Justice. Judges,
indeed, should be extra prudent in associating with litigants and counsel
appearing before them so as to avoid even a mere perception of possible bias or
partiality. It is not expected, of course, that judges should live in retirement or
seclusion from any social intercourse. Indeed, it may be desirable, for instance,
that they continue, time and work commitments permitting, to relate to
members of the bar in worthwhile endeavors and in such fields of interest, in
general, as are in keeping with the noble aims and objectives of the legal
profession. In pending or prospective litigations before them, however, judges
should be scrupulously careful to avoid anything that may tend to awaken the
suspicion that their personal, social or sundry relations could influence their
objectivity, for not only must judges possess proficiency in law but that also
they must act and behave in such manner that would assure, with great
comfort, litigants and their counsel of the judges’ competence, integrity and
independence.
WHEREFORE, (a) the complaint against respondent Judge Roberto S.
Javellana for ignorance of the law is DISMISSED for

_________________
2 Report and Recommendation dated 25 May 2001, pp. 20–21.

509

VOL. 368, NOVEMBER 13, 2001 509

Sibayan-Joaquin vs. Javellana

being without basis; (b) said respondent is found administratively liable for
failing to render judgment in Criminal Case No. RTC1150 within the period
prescribed therefor and is hereby imposed a FINE of TWO THOUSAND
PESOS, with warning that a repetition of same or similar acts will be dealt
with more severely than herein imposed; (c) the respondent, finally, is
ADMONISHED to constantly be circumspect in his conduct and dealings with
lawyers who have pending cases before him.
SO ORDERED.

          Melo  (Chairman),  Panganiban,  Sandoval-Gutierrezand  Carpio,

JJ., concur.

Complaint for ignorance of the law dismissed, but Respondent meted a

P2,000 fine for inefficiency with warning against repetition of similar acts.
Respondent further admonished.

Notes.—The fact that the trial judge believed the prosecution’s evidence
more than the defense’s does not indicate that he was biased.  (People vs.
Tabarno, 242 SCRA 456 [1995])

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171399f1196cf0e828e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
4/1/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

A judge must preserve the trust and faith reposed in him by the parties as
an impartial and objective administrator of justice and when he exhibits
actions that give rise, fairly or unfairly, to perceptions of bias, such faith and
confidence are eroded, and he has no choice but to inhibit himself
voluntarily. (Garcia vs. Burgos, 291 SCRA 546 [1998])

——o0o——
510

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/00000171399f1196cf0e828e003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5