5/25/2017 A.M.No.

MTJ081714

RepublicofthePhilippines
SupremeCourt
Manila
THIRDDIVISION

DANIELG.SEVILLA, A.M.No.MTJ081714
Complainant, [FormerlyA.M.OCAIPINo.082016
MTJ]

Present:

versus CARPIOMORALES,Chairperson,
BRION,

PERALTA,*
BERSAMIN,and
JUDGEFRANCISCOS. VILLARAMA,JR.,JJ.
LINDO,METROPOLITAN Promulgated:
TRIALCOURT,BRANCH55,
MALABONCITY, February9,2011
Respondent.
xx

DECISION

BERSAMIN,J.:


Atrialjudgewhoallows,orabets,ortoleratesnumerousunreasonablepostponementsof
the trial, whether out of inefficiency or indolence, or out of bias towards a party, is
administrativelyliable.

Antecedents

OnJuly4,2007,DanielG.SevillachargedHon.FranciscoS.Lindo,thenthePresiding
Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 55, in MalabonCity with delay in the
disposition of Criminal Case No. JL004260 (a prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa
Bilang22[BP22]entitledPeoplev.NestorLeynes).
Sevilla alleged that he was the private complainant in Criminal Case No. JL004260,
whichwasfiledonJune10,2003,andraffledtoBranch55,presidedbyJudgeLindothathe
testified once in the case, but his testimony pertained only to his personal circumstances that

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ081714.htm 1/9
5/25/2017 A.M.No.MTJ081714

afterhegavesuchpartialtestimony,JudgeLindoadjournedthesessionforlackofmaterialtime,
and persistently reset the subsequent hearings for lack of material time that Judge Lindos
indifferencewasdesignedtoforcehimtoaccepttheofferofanamicablesettlementmadebythe
accused and that Judge Lindos coercion was manifested in open court and in his chamber by
telling him in the presence of the accused: Mr. Sevilla, ang hirap mo namang pakiusapan.
Kontingperalangyan.Bahalakamaghintaysawala.

Sevilla asserted that Judge Lindo thereby violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of
JudicialConduct,whichrequiresthatajudgeshouldadministerjusticeimpartiallyandwithout
delaythatJudgeLindoalsoviolatedSection1,Rule135oftheRulesofCourt,whichmandates
that justice be impartially administered without unnecessary delay that Judge Lindos
unreasonableresettingofthehearings12timesrenderedinconsequentialhisrighttothespeedy
dispositionofhiscaseandthatsuchresettingsweremadeupontheinstanceofJudgeLindo,not
uponmotionoftheparties.

[1]
InhiscommentdatedJuly26,2007, JudgeLindorefutedthecharge,claimingthatthe
postponementswereuponvalidgroundsthathesettheinitialtrialonAugust17,2004,butdue
toSevillasabsenceonsaiddate,heorderedtheprovisionaldismissalofthecaseuponmotionof
theDefenseandwiththeexpressconformityoftheaccusedandthepublicprosecutorthatin
the interest of fairness, he set aside the provisional dismissal and reinstated the case upon
motionofSevillaandthathesettheinitialtrialonOctober19,2004,butthehearingwasreset
on December 7, 2004, and was further reset on February 1, 2005 due to his official leave of
absence.
Judge Lindo cited the other dates of hearings and the corresponding reasons for their
postponement,asfollows:

a) March 4, 2005, April 26, 2005, October 4, 2005, November 29, 2005, and
August2,2006agreementoftheparties

b)May20,2005absenceofthepublicprosecutor

c)August12,2005docketinventory

d)January10,2006absenceofthecomplainant

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ081714.htm 2/9
5/25/2017 A.M.No.MTJ081714

e)March14,2006lackofmaterialtimeduetothecontinuationofthetrialoftwo
othercriminalcasesthatprecededCriminalCaseNo.JL004260

f) May 16, 2005 and January 12, 2007 absence of the lawyer from the Public
AttorneysOffice(PAO)and

g) September 1, 2006 and November 24, 2006 lack of material time due to the
continuationofthetrialoftwocriminalcasesthatprecededCriminalCaseNo.
JL004260.

[2]
Sevilla submitted his reply on August 2, 2007, clarifying that he did not agree with
Judge Lindos orders of postponement but was only forced to comply with them, and that he
affixed his signature to the minutes of hearings only as proof of his personal presence at the
hearings,notasaratificationofwhattranspired.

[3]
OnMay20,2008, the Office of the CourtAdministrator (OCA) submitted its report,
whichincludedthefollowingevaluationandrecommendation:

EVALUATION: While it may appear that the reasons or justifications proffered by
respondentJudgeseemacceptable,aclosescrutinyoftheresultsofthejudicialauditconducted
bytheOfficeoftheCourtAdministrator(OCA)onJuly12to19,2007intheMetropolitanTrial
Court, Branch 55, Malabon City, of which Respondent was the Presiding Judge until he was
compulsorilyretiredfromtheserviceonJuly24,2007,revealedthatquiteanumberofcasesthat
have been submitted for decision remained unacted upon. Twentythree cases, seventeen of
which were undecided beyond the 90day day reglementary period, seven cases with pending
incident/motion submitted for resolution which have been unresolved, 6 of which beyond the
reglementaryperiod.Thereweretwentyonecaseswithnoactiontakensincetheirfilingincourt.

Thejudicialauditalsorevealedthefollowingfindings:

(1)therewasnoproperrecordkeeping
(2)theyhadnoupdatedinventoryofcases
(3) thereweretwentyone(21)inheritedcasesinsidethechambersofJudgeLindowhich
weresubmittedfordecisionwaybackinthe80s.Therewerenotreflectedinthedocket
inventories submitted to OCA but these were reportedly just found in 2000 while the
branch staff were relocating to another place following a fire that gutted their
courthouseinJuly2005andwerenotproperlyturnedovertohim
(4)casefoldersofonehundredseventyfive(175)criminalcaseswerenotpresentedtothe
auditteamforexamination
(5) two hundred seventy (270) criminal cases were not reported/reflected in the docket
inventorythatwassubsequentlyupdatedupto2007

If the telling results of the judicial audit were not an irrefragably clear manifestation of
inefficiencyandineffectivenessofthecourtsbranch,moreparticularlyitspresidingjudge,how
could the herein respondent Judge convincingly argue that there was indeed no delay in the
http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ081714.htm 3/9
5/25/2017 A.M.No.MTJ081714

disposition of the case in respect of Criminal Case No. JL004260. This Office, after a
circumspect evaluation of the records at hand, together with the report on the judicial audit
conductedattheMeTC,Branch55,MalabonCity,cannothelpfindingforthecomplainantand
deemsitreasonabletometeupontherespondentJudgeafineofTWENTYONETHOUSAND
PESOS(P21,000.00)tobedeductedfromhisretirementbenefits.

RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable
Courtisourrecommendationthattheinstantcomplaintberedocketedasaregularadministrative
matterandrespondentJudgebefoundGUILTYofDelayintheDispositionofCasestantamount
toInefficiencyandIncompetenceinthePerformanceofOfficialDutiesandbemetedafineof
P21,000.00tobedeductedfromtheretirementbenefitsofthehereinrespondentJudgewhowas
compulsorilyretiredfromtheserviceeffectiveJuly24,2007.

OnAugust4,2008,theCourtnotedthecomplaint,comment,andreply,andredocketed
[4]
thecaseasaregularadministrativematter.


[5]
OnOctober22,2008,JudgeLindosrejoinderwasnoted.

Thereafter,JudgeLindomovedfortheearlyresolutionofthecaseandforthereleaseof
[6] [7]
hisretirementbenefits. TheCourtnotedhismotiononJanuary12,2009.

[8]
OnFebruary17,2009,JudgeLindofiledanexpartemanifestation, statingthathewas
involvedinA.M.No.08373MeTCentitledRe:ReportontheJudicialAuditConductedatthe
MetropolitanTrialCourt,Branch55,MalabonCity,anotheradministrativecasethattheCourt,
intheresolutiondatedApril22,2008,orderedthereleaseofhisretirementbenefitssubjectto
theretentionofP100,000.00andtoclearancerequirementsandthattheOCAsDocketDivision
refusedtoissueaclearanceduetothependencyofthiscaseandthattheP100,000.00retention
beconsideredassufficientforbothA.M.No.08373METCandthiscase.

AstheOCAsreportstated,JudgeLindomandatorilyretiredfromtheserviceonJuly24,
2007.

On June 17, 2009, the Court ordered the release of Judge Lindos retirement benefits
[9]
subjecttotheP100,000.00retention.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ081714.htm 4/9
5/25/2017 A.M.No.MTJ081714

[10]
On July 31, 2009, the Court promulgated a decision in A.M. No. 08373MeTC,
disposing:

WHEREFORE, retired Judge Francisco S. Lindo, former Presiding Judge of the
MetropolitanTrialCourtofMalabonCity, Branch 55, is found GUILTY of simple misconduct
andunduedelayinrenderingadecision.HeisFINEDintheamountofTwentyThousandPesos
(P20,000.00) in accordance with Section 11, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as
amended, to be deducted from the One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000,00.) we ordered
withheldfromhisretirementbenefitspursuanttoourResolutiondatedApril22,2008.TheChief
of the Financial Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator is DIRECTED to
immediately release to retired Judge Francisco S. Lindo the remaining Eighty Thousand Pesos
(P80,000.00).


[11]
ByresolutiondatedJuly19,2010, thiscasewastransferredtotheThirdDivisionfor
resolution.

Issue

TheonlyissueiswhetherornotretiredJudgeLindowasadministrativelyliableforthe
numerouspostponementsinCriminalCaseNo.JL004260.

Ruling

WeagreewithandadoptthereportandrecommendationoftheOCAthatJudgeLindobe
held liable for delay in the disposition of his cases that was tantamount to inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of his official duties, and that he be meted a fine of
P21,000.00tobedeductedfromhisretirementbenefitsduetohiscompulsoryretirementfrom
theJudiciaryeffectiveJuly24,2007.WepointoutthatthefindingsoftheOCAwerebasedon
therecordsofJudgeLindosBranchthattheOCAsubjectedtoajudicialauditinanticipationof
hismandatoryretirement.

Although the postponement of a hearing in a civil or criminal case may at times be
unavoidable,theCourtdisallowsundueorunnecessarypostponementsofcourthearings,simply
becausetheycauseunreasonabledelaysintheadministrationofjusticeand,thus,underminethe
[12]
peoplesfaithintheJudiciary, asidefromaggravatingthefinancialandemotionalburdensof
thelitigants.Forthisreason,theCourthasenjoinedthatpostponementsandresettingsshouldbe

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ081714.htm 5/9
5/25/2017 A.M.No.MTJ081714

[13]
allowed only upon meritorious grounds, and has consistently reminded all trial judges to
[14]
adoptafirmpolicyagainstimprovidentpostponements.

Thestrictjudicialpolicyonpostponementsapplieswithmoreforceandgreaterreasonto
prosecutionsinvolvingviolationsofBP22,whosepromptresolutionhasbeenensuredbytheir
beingnowcoveredbytheRuleonSummaryProcedure.TheCourthaspronouncedthattheRule
onSummaryProcedurewaspreciselyadoptedtopromoteamoreexpeditiousandinexpensive
determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy
[15]
dispositionofcases.

Yet,JudgeLindopostponedfivehearingsforlackofmaterialtimewithoutbotheringto
state the specific causes why his court lacked material time. He also reset four hearings
supposedlyupontheagreementoftheparties,whichthecomplainantcrediblydeniedbecause
thatwasprejudicialtohisinterest.HeevencancelledthehearingofMay25,2007ontheground
that he had to file on May 28, 2007 his application for compulsory retirement and leave of
absenceuntilJuly24,2007,andsetthenexthearingonAugust17,2007,whenhecouldhave
set the hearing sooner either on May 26 or May 27 in view of his impending long period of
absence. Considering that we cannot discern any rationality for his actions in the handling of
Criminal Case No. JL004260, a simple BP 22 case involving only P2,000.00, we can only
adjudgesuchactuationsassmackingeitherofindolenceandutterinefficiency,orofbias,ifnot
hostility,towardsSevilla,orboth.

Judge Lindo cited the absence of the public prosecutor in one hearing and of the PAO
lawyer in two hearings as justifications for the cancellation of the hearings. Such excuses for
delaywerenotcredible,however,forhecouldhavesummonedareliefprosecutorandarelief
PAOattorney,ormadearrangementsfortheirattendancepursuanttotheCourtsCircular189
(datedJanuary19,1989)toavoidunnecessarypostponements.Indeed,Circular189relevantly
provided:

2. The Presiding Judge shall make arrangements with the prosecutor and the CLAO
attorneysothatareliefprosecutorandCLAOattorneyarealwaysavailableincasetheregular
[16]
prosecutorandCLAOattorneyareabsent

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ081714.htm 6/9
5/25/2017 A.M.No.MTJ081714

Ascanbeseen,JudgeLindomadeorallowedtoomanyunreasonablepostponementsthat
inevitablydelayedtheproceedingsandpreventedthepromptdispositionofCriminalCaseNo.
JL004260 out of manifest bias in favor of the accused, to the prejudice of Sevilla as the
complainantinCriminalCaseNo.JL004260.Thus,heflagrantlyviolatedtheletterandspirit
both of Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which enjoined all judges to administer
justiceimpartiallyandwithoutdelayandofCanon6oftheCanonsofJudicialEthics, which
required him as a trial judge to be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him,
rememberingthatjusticedelayedisoftenjusticedenied.

That his conduct proceeded from his bias towards the accused rendered his acts and
omissionsasgrossmisconduct.Itissettledthatthemisconductisgraveifitinvolvesanyofthe
additionalelementsofcorruption,willfulintenttoviolatethelaw,ordisregardoflongstanding
rules, which must be established by substantial evidence otherwise, the misconduct is only
[17]
simple.

Gross misconduct consisting in violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct is a serious
chargeunderSection8ofRule140,RulesofCourt,towit:

Section8.Seriouscharges.Seriouschargesinclude:
xxx
3.GrossmisconductconstitutingviolationsoftheCodeofJudicialConduct
xxx

andispunishedunderSection11ofRule140,RulesofCourt,thuswise:

Section11.Sanctions.A.Iftherespondentisguiltyofaseriouscharge,anyofthe
followingsanctionsmaybeimposed:

1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may
determine,anddisqualificationfromreinstatementorappointmenttoanypublicoffice,including
governmentownedorcontrolledcorporations.Provided,however,thattheforfeitureofbenefits
shallinnocaseincludeaccruedleavecredits

2.Suspensionfromofficewithoutsalaryandotherbenefitsformorethanthree(3)butnot
exceedingsix(6)monthsor

3.AfineofmorethanP20,000.00butnotexceedingP40,000.00
xxx

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ081714.htm 7/9
5/25/2017 A.M.No.MTJ081714

WithJudgeLindohavingearlierretired,onlythethirdsanctionoffinecanbeapractical
[18]
sanction. In Hernandez v. De Guzman, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on the
respondent judge for allowing frequent and groundless postponements of the hearings in a
[19]
criminalcase.Similarly,inArquerov.Mendoza, theCourtmetedafineofP5,000.00onthe
respondent judge for allowing unreasonable delay in the proceedings of prosecutions for a
violation of BP 22. However, the recommendation of the OCA for a fine in the amount of
P21,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits, is fully warranted, considering that
JudgeLindowaspreviouslyfinedforunduedelayinrenderingadecisioninA.M.No.08373
[20]
METC.
WHEREFORE,wefindanddeclarerespondentretiredJudgeFranciscoS.Lindoguilty
of grave misconduct, and, accordingly, punish him with a fine of P21,000.00, to be deducted
fromhisretirementbenefits.

TheincumbentPresidingJudgeoftheMetropolitanTrialCourt,Branch55,inMalabon
CityisdirectedtoproceedwiththetrialofCriminalCaseNo.JL004260withdispatch,andto
decideitwithintherequiredperiodifthecasehasnotyetbeenresolved.

SOORDERED.



LUCASP.BERSAMIN
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:


CONCHITACARPIOMORALES
AssociateJustice
Chairperson





ARTUROD.BRIONDIOSDADOM.PERALTA
AssociateJusticeAssociateJustice

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ081714.htm 8/9
5/25/2017 A.M.No.MTJ081714

MARTINS.VILLARAMA,JR.
AssociateJustice

*InlieuofJusticeMariaLourdesP.A.SerenowhoisonleaveperOfficeOrderNo.944datedFebruary9,2011.
[1]
Rollo,pp.1322.
[2]
Id.,pp.7883.
[3]
Id.,pp.14.
[4]
Id.,pp.8586.
[5]
Id.,pp.8891.
[6]
Id.,pp.101103.
[7]
Id.,p.104.
[8]
Id.,pp.105112.
[9]
Id.,p.113.
[10]
PennedbyAssociateJusticeLeonardoA.Quisumbing(retired),reportedin594SCRA492.
[11]
Rollo,p.114.
[12]
Sevillav.Quintin,A.M.No.MTJ051603,October25,2005,474SCRA10,1718.
[13]
ProducersBankofthePhilippinesv.CourtofAppeals,G.R.No.125468,October9,2000,342SCRA327,334.
[14]
Re:ReportontheJudicialAuditConductedintheRTCofKidapawan,Brs.17and23,Kabacan,Brs.16&17,NorthCotobato,
AMNo.965169RTC,May9,2003,403SCRA130,133Gallegov.Doronila,A.M.No.MTJ001278,June26,2000,334SCRA
339,345Hernandezv.DeGuzman,A.M.No.RTJ931064,January22,1996,252SCRA64,67.
[15]
Bernaldezv.Avelino,A.M.No.MTJ071672,July9,2007,527SCRA11,20Gallegov.Doronila, A.M. No. MTJ001278,
June26,2000,334SCRA339,345.
[16]
SeealsoMatiasv.Plan,A.M.No.MTJ981159,August3,1998,293SCRA532,537.
[17]
CivilServiceCommissionv.Ledesma,G.R.No.154521,September30,2005,471SCRA589,603.
[18]
A.M.No.RTJ931064,January22,1996,252SCRA64,67.
[19]
A.M.No.MTJ991209,September30,1999,315SCRA503,507.
[20]
Supra,note10.

http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/2011/february2011/MTJ081714.htm 9/9