A.M. No. RTJ-14-2367, January 13, 2014 (Formerly OCA I. .I. No. 12-3!7"-RTJ# $R.

R%M& AN'%(A J)NIO, $ C an* JO$% +IN% ,. (ORICA, Complainants, v. J),'% MARI-IC A. CACATIAN-.%(TRAN, .RANC+ 3, R%'IONA( TRIA( CO)RT T)')%'ARAO CIT&, CA'A&AN,Respondent. R%$O()TION .RION, J./ For our resolution is the Report and Recommendation 1 dated August 13, 2013 of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in OCA !.". #o. 12$3%&'$R(). (he Antecedents Claire Ann Campos, a 1&$*ear old student, filed an affida+it$complaint for +iolation of Repu,lic Act (R.A.) #o. &-10 (the Child A,use a.) and R.A. #o. &2&& (the /agna Carta for the 0isa,led) ,efore the (uguegarao Cit* !rosecution Office against 1r. Rem* Angela )unio and 0r. )osephine 0. orica, the !resident and the 0ean of the 1chool of 2ealth 1er+ices, respecti+el*, of 1t. !aul 3ni+ersit* of the !hilippines (1!3!). "n her complaint, Claire alleged that she .as refused enrolment ,* 1!3! for the 4.1. #ursing course in her sophomore *ear ,ecause of her cleft palate5 she alleged that the refusal .as made despite her completion of 1!3!6s College Freshmen !rogram Curriculum. "n its resolution dated August 22, 200%, the prosecutor6s office found pro,a,le cause to indict )unio and orica of the crimes charged, and recommended the filing of the corresponding informations against them. On 1eptem,er %, 200%, )unio and orica appealed the August 22, 200% resolution of the prosecutor6s office, ,ut 3ndersecretar* )ose 7icente 1ala8ar of the 0epartment of )ustice (0O)) denied their petition for re+ie. in his resolution of Fe,ruar* 29, 2011. On /arch 31, 2011, the prosecutor6s office filed t.o informations against )unio and orica for +iolations of 1ection 10(a), Article 7", in relation .ith Article 3(a) and (,) of R.A. #o. &-10, and 1ection 12 of R.A. #o. &2&& ,efore the Regional (rial Court (R(C), 4ranch 9, (uguegarao Cit*, presided ,* )udge *liha A:uino. On April 2&, 2011, the cases .ere assigned to )udge /ari+ic A. Cacatian$4eltran of the R(C, 4ranch 3, (uguegarao Cit*, due to the inhi,ition of )udge A:uino. On April 9, 2011, )unio and orica sought a reconsideration of the 0O)6s Fe,ruar* 29, 2011 resolution. On /a* ;, 2011, the R(C found pro,a,le cause to issue .arrants of arrest against )unio and orica. Accordingl*, it issued the .arrants of arrest against them. On /a* 29, 2011, orica posted ,ail for her pro+isional li,ert*. On /a* 2;, 2011, )unio and orica filed an urgent motion to hold in a,e*ance further proceedings and to recall .arrants of arrest. )unio posted ,ail on the same da*. "n its order dated )une 19, 2011, the R(C denied )unio and orica6s urgent motion to hold in a,e*ance further proceedings and to recall .arrants of arrest.

/ean.hile, 0O) 1ecretar* eila de ima granted )unio and orica6s motion for reconsideration and set aside the Fe,ruar* 29, 2011 resolution of 3ndersecretar* 1ala8ar. Accordingl*, in her resolution dated August %, 2011, she directed the Caga*an !ro+incial !rosecutor to immediatel* cause the .ithdra.al of the informations for +iolations of R.A. #os. &-10 and &2&& against )unio and orica for lac< of pro,a,le cause. On August 12, 2011, )unio and orica filed a manifestation and motion ,efore the R(C, pra*ing for the cancellation of their scheduled arraignment, and for the dismissal of the cases against them. On 1eptem,er ;, 2011, the Cit* !rosecutor, )unio and orica filed a =oint motion to .ithdra. informations in +ie. of 1ecretar* 0e ima6s August %, 2011 resolution. On 1eptem,er 19, 2011, )udge Cacatian$4eltran issued an order stating that >the motion relati+e to the resolution of the 0epartment of )ustice is deemed su,mitted for resolution.> 2 On 0ecem,er 20, 2011, )unio, orica and the Cit* !rosecutor filed a =oint motion for resolution. "n its order of )anuar* -, 2012, the R(C denied the =oint motion to .ithdra. informations for lac< of merit. (he Cit* !rosecutor, )unio and orica mo+ed to reconsider this order, ,ut the R(C denied their motion in its order dated April 10, 2012. (he Administrati+e Complaint )unio and orica filed an affida+it$complaint against )udge Cacatian$4eltran for +iolation of Rules 1.02, 3.01, 3.02, and 3.0; of the Code of )udicial Conduct. (he* alleged that )udge Cacatian$4eltran onl* resol+ed the =oint motion to .ithdra. informations after almost four months from the time it .as su,mitted for resolution. (he* claimed that four months .as ,e*ond the period prescri,ed ,* e?isting rules for the resolution of simple motions. )unio and orica further alleged that )udge Cacatian$4eltran >arrogated unto herself the role of a prosecutor and a =udge>3 .hen she insisted that the* stand for trial although she did not find an* gra+e a,use of discretion on the part of )ustice 1ecretar* 0e ima. "n her comment, )udge Cacatian$4eltran e?plained that )unio and orica might ha+e conducted a follo.$up of the motions to dismiss at 4ranch 9 .here the records of the criminal cases had ,een retained, and that the staff of 4ranch 9 failed to inform her of an* follo.$up ,* )unio and orica and@or ,* their counsel. 1he maintained that she >lost no time in finishing the draft> 9 of her )anuar* -, 2012 order .hen the =oint motion for resolution .as ,rought to her attention. )udge Cacatian$4eltran maintained that the R(C .as not ,ound ,* the findings of the 1ecretar* of )ustice since her court had alread* ac:uired =urisdiction o+er the case. 1he added that she made an independent assessment of the e+idence ,efore den*ing the motion. 1he further stated that she acted promptl* on all other incidents in the case. (he OCA6s Report and Recommendation "n its Report and Recommendation dated August 13, 2013, the OCA recommended thatA (1) the administrati+e complaint against )udge Cacatian$4eltran ,e dismissed for ,eing =udicial in nature5 and (2) )udge Cacatian$4eltran ,e admonished to strictl* compl* .ith the reglementar* periods to act on pending motions and other incidents in her court. (he OCA held that errors committed ,* a =udge in the e?ercise of his ad=udicati+e functions cannot ,e corrected through administrati+e proceedings. "t e?plained that the a,errant acts allegedl* committed

,* )udge Cacatian$4eltran relate to the e?ercise of her =udicial functions, and added that onl* =udicial errors tainted .ith fraud, dishonest*, gross ignorance, ,ad faith or deli,erate intent to do an in=ustice should ,e administrati+el* sanctioned. (he OCA, nonetheless, ruled that )udge Cacatian$4eltran should ,e admonished to ,e more mindful of the reglementar* periods to resol+e pending motions. Our Ruling After due consideration, .e appro+e and adopt the OCA6s recommendations as our o.n ruling. 0ela* in resol+ing a motion 1ection 1;(1), Article 7""" of the Constitution re:uires lo.er court =udges to decide a case .ithin the period of ninet* ('0) da*s. Rule 3.0;, Canon 3 of the Code of )udicial Conduct li<e.ise holds that =udges should administer =ustice .ithout dela* and directs e+er* =udge to dispose of the courts6 ,usiness promptl* .ithin the period prescri,ed ,* la.. Rules prescri,ing the time .ithin .hich certain acts must ,e done are indispensa,le to pre+ent needless dela*s in the orderl* and speed* disposition of cases. (hus, the ninet* ('0) da* period is mandator*. (his mandate applies e+en to motions or interlocutor* matters or incidents pending ,efore a magistrate. ; "n the present case, the Cit* !rosecutor6s =oint motion to .ithdra. informations .as deemed su,mitted for resolution on 1eptem,er 19, 2011. )udge Cacatian$4eltran, ho.e+er, did not act on the motion .ithin the prescri,ed three (3) month period (or up to 0ecem,er 13, 2011), and instead ruled on it onl* on )anuar* -, 2012. "n her defense, )udge Cacatian$4eltran e?plained that )unio and orica might ha+e conducted a follo.$ up of the motions to dismiss at 4ranch 9 .here the records of the criminal cases .ere retained, and that the staff of 4ranch 9 failed to inform her of an* follo.$up ,* )unio and orica and@or their counsel. Be note, ho.e+er, that 4ranch 9 is paired .ith )udge Cacatian$4eltran6s 4ranch 3 per Circular #o. &$&9, as amended ,* 1C Circular #o. 1'$'%. 1ince Criminal Case #os. 190;3$;9 had ,een assigned to )udge Cacatian$4eltran, it .as incum,ent upon her to update herself on the de+elopments in these consolidated cases5 she should ha+e <ept her o.n record of cases and noted therein the status of each case to ensure prompt and effecti+e action. (o do this, )udge Cacatian$4eltran should ha+e adopted a record management s*stem and organi8ed her doc<etCan approach that she appears not to ha+e done. 1ections ' and 11, Rule 190 of the Rules of Court, as amended ,* A./. #o. 01$%$10$1C, classifies undue dela* in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge, .ith the follo.ing administrati+e sanctionsA (a) suspension from office .ithout salar* and other ,enefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months5 or (,) a fine of more than !10,000.00 ,ut not e?ceeding!20,000.00. 2o.e+er, the records are ,ereft of an* e+idence sho.ing that there had ,een undue dela* (as sho.n ,* the records), an* attendant ,ad faith, an* intent to pre=udice a part* to the case, or some other ulterior ends. (he OCA, in fact, pointedl* ruled that the inaction .as not attended .ith maliceA )udge Cacatian$4eltran resol+ed the =oint motion to .ithdra. informations t.o (2) da*s after she learned of its e?istence on )anuar* 9, 2012. (o our mind, these circumstances are sufficient to mitigate the lia,ilit* of )udge Cacatian$4eltran and <eep us from imposing a fine or suspension from office. Accordingl*, .e find sufficient and .arranted the OCA6s recommended penalt* of admonition. 0enial of the =oint motion to .ithdra. informations

(he trial court is not ,ound to adopt the resolution of the 1ecretar* of )ustice since it is mandated to independentl* e+aluate or assess the merits of the case5 in the e?ercise of its discretion, it ma* agree or disagree .ith the recommendation of the 1ecretar* of )ustice. Reliance on the resolution of the 1ecretar* of )ustice alone .ould ,e an a,dication of the trial courtDs dut* and =urisdiction to determine a prima facie case.- Be stress that once a criminal complaint or information is filed in court, an* disposition of the case (.hether it ,e a dismissal, an ac:uittal or a con+iction of the accused) rests .ithin the e?clusi+e =urisdiction, competence, and discretion of the trial court5 it is the ,est and sole =udge of .hat to do .ith the case ,efore it. & "n resol+ing a motion to dismiss a case or to .ithdra. the information filed ,* the pu,lic prosecutor (on his o.n initiati+e or pursuant to the directi+e of the 1ecretar* of )ustice), either for insufficienc* of e+idence in the possession of the prosecutor or for lac< of pro,a,le cause, the trial court should not merel* rel* on the findings of the pu,lic prosecutor or of the 1ecretar* of )ustice that no crime had ,een committed or that the e+idence in the possession of the pu,lic prosecutor is insufficient to support a =udgment of con+iction of the accused. % (o do so is to surrender a po.er constitutionall* +ested in the )udiciar* to the E?ecuti+e. "n the present case, )udge Cacatian$4eltran does not appear to ha+e ar,itraril* denied the =oint motion to .ithdra. informations. (he records sho. that she e+aluated and assessed the informations, the resolution of the Cit* !rosecutor, the affida+it and repl*$affida+it of the complainants, the counter$ affida+it and re=oinder and the appeal memorandum of )unio and orica, and the supporting documents attached to them. "n her )anuar* -, 2012 order, )udge Cacatian$4eltran nota,l* e?plained the ,asis for her denial. #o proof .hatsoe+er e?ists in all these, sho.ing that ,ad faith, malice or an* corrupt purpose attended the issuance of her order. "t is also important to note in this regard that the issue of .hether )udge Cacatian$4eltran correctl* denied the =oint motion to .ithdra. informations, despite the finding of 1ecretar* 0e ima of lac< of pro,a,le cause, is =udicial in natureA )unio and orica6s remed* under the circumstances should ha+e ,een made .ith the proper court for the appropriate =udicial action, not .ith the OCA ,* means of an administrati+e complaint. Be also find unmeritorious )unio and orica6s argument that )udge Cacatian$4eltran >arrogated unto herself the role of a prosecutor and a =udge>' .hen she insisted that the accused stand trial although she did not find an* gra+e a,use of discretion on the part of )ustice 1ecretar* de ima. Bhen a court acts, .hether its action is consistent or inconsistent .ith a prosecutor6s recommendation, it rules on the prosecutor6s action and does not there,* assume the role of a prosecutor. (he case of 2ipos, 1r. +. 4a*10 ,est e?plains .h* .e so ruleA (o clarif*, .e ne+er stated in edesma that a =udge is allo.ed to den* a /otion to Bithdra. "nformation from the prosecution onl* .hen there is gra+e a,use of discretion on the part of the prosecutors mo+ing for such .ithdra.al. #either did .e rule therein that .here there is no gra+e a,use of discretion on the part of the prosecutors, the denial of the /otion to Bithdra. "nformation is +oid. Bhat .e held therein is that a trial =udge commits gra+e a,use of discretion if he denies a /otion to Bithdra. "nformation .ithout an independent and complete assessment of the issues presented in such /otion. Bith the independent and thorough assessment and e+aluation of the merits of the =oint motion to .ithdra. information that )udge Cacatian$4eltran undertoo< ,efore dismissing it, she acted as a =udge should and can in no .a* ,e said to ha+e assumed the role of a prosecutor. (he parties for their part are not .ithout an* remed* as the Rules of Court ampl* pro+ide for the remed* against a =udicial action ,elie+ed to ,e grossl* a,usi+e .hen the remed* of direct appeal is not a+aila,le. Be cannot rule on this point in the present case ho.e+er as this is a matter not ,efore us in this administrati+e recourse against )udge Cacatian$4eltran. B2EREFORE, premises considered .e A!!RO7E A#0 A0O!( as our o.n the August 13, 2013 Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. )udge /ari+ic A Cacatian$4eltran is

here,* A0/O#"12E0 and RE/"#0E0 that she should dispose of her cases .ithin the period re:uired ,* la.. $O OR,%R%,. ART)RO ,. .RION Associate Justice 0% CONC)R/ ANTONIO T. CAR IO Associate Justice Chairperson MARIANO C. ,%( CA$TI((O Associate Justice JO$% ORT)'A( %R%1 Associate Justice

%$T%(A M. %R(A$-.%RNA.% Associate Justice