Dela Cruz v Bersamira

Facts: Verified complaint from a concerned citizen

Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public
Officials and the Code of Judicial Conduct

The case stemmed from three (3) criminal cases assigned to respondent, namely:

- a.] Criminal Case against Roberto Agana y Borja, for violation of Section 16, Article III, R.A.
6425, as amended;
- b.] Criminal Case against Roberto Agana y Borja for violation of P.D. No. 1866; and
- c.] Criminal Case against Sarah Resula y Puga for violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. No.
6425, as amended.

Complaint alleges that respondent as the presiding judge in whose sala the above enumerated cases are
pending, gravely abused his discretion and exhibited evident partiality by:

1.] socializing in posh restaurants particularly in Marios Restaurant, Quezon City and the Shangri-
la EDSA Plaza with then Congresswoman Venice Agana, mother of the accused Roberto Agana, together
with their counsel, Atty. Narciso Cruz;

2.] issuing unreasonable orders for postponement which unjustly delay the administration of
justice; and

3.] allowing the two accused, Roberto Agana and his live-in partner, Sarah Resula, to submit to a
drug test thereby postponing the trial of the cases indefinitely.

Court appointed Associate Appellate Court Justice Delilah Vidallon-Magtolis to investigate.

The complainant did not appear at the hearing. Despite this, Justice Vidallon-Magtolis, bearing in mind
that even a desistance of the complainant is of no moment in an administrative case such as this,
proceeded with the investigation by examining the records of the criminal cases involved which
respondent had brought along. She subsequently submitted a Report containing the following findings
and recommendations:

as to the alleged partiality of the respondent in granting postponements, his testimony could only
be in the form of opinions which would have been inadmissible, considering that he is not party to the
criminal cases, neither does he appear to be involved therein in any other capacity. As a matter of fact,
his real identity remains to be a question, since he did not actually furnish his real address in his
complaints, both with the Ombudsman and with the Court Administrator

Justice (OCA) wanted to dismiss however the SC is the only authorized body to dismiss such admin.
Cases.
 Justice Vidallon-Magtolis recommended that respondent be fined the sum of Ten Thousand
(P10,000.00) Pesos with a stern warning that a repetition of the acts complained of will be dealt with
more severely.

The Court agrees with the Investigating Justice that respondents conduct was hardly exemplary in this
case.

The Court in a litany of cases has reminded members of the bench that the unreasonable delay of a
judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes a
ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate. Indeed, the Court has consistently
impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice
delayed is justice denied

In the case at bench, the fact that respondent tarried too long in acting on the pending incidents in the
Criminal Cases Nos. 11309, 4275-D and 4276-D, hardly becomes open to question. If at all, respondent
judges foot-dragging in acting on the incidents in the said cases, which stopped only when
administrative complaints were filed against him with the Ombudsman and the OCA, is a strong indicia
of his lack of diligence in the performance of his official duties and responsibilities

While the Court agrees with the Investigating Justice that respondents conduct warrants the
imposition of sanctions against him, the recommended penalty is not commensurate to the misdeed
committed.Given the prevailing facts of the case, a fine of P10,000.00 accompanied by a reprimand,
with a stern warning that the commission of similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely, is a more appropriate penalty.[64] WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, respondent
Judge is hereby FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00). Further, he is REPRIMANDED and
sternly warned that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely. SO ORDERED.

***In re letter of Justice Vasquez

Complaint seeks to sanction several justices of the Court of Appeals (CA) for improprieties or irregularities
in connection with CA G.R.-SP No. 103692, entitled "Antonio Rosete, et al. v. Securities and Exchange
Commission, et al." (the Meralco-GSIS case)

a) Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Justice Vicente Q. Roxas;

In his Motion, Justice Vicente Q. Roxas (Justice Roxas) seeks a reconsideration of the imposition of the
penalty of dismissal upon him and prays that should a penalty still be imposed, the penalty be accordingly
reduced to two months suspension at the most.

Justice Roxas attempts to explain the "haste" in which his decision was promulgated by claiming that it
was but due to his intention (a) to "efficiently" dispose of the Meralco-GSIS case and (b) to preserve
confidentiality (i.e. avoid leakages and outside influence). He likewise asserts that he was in compliance
with Canon 6, Section 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which provides: "Judges shall perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."
Note: Chairmanship confusion

Justice Roxas further cites the confusion that arose due to the chairmanship dispute between
Justices Jose L. Sabio, Jr. and Bienvenido L. Reyes. He asserts that he acted in good faith and believed
by virtue of the reorganization of the CA and their internal rules it was the Eighth Division which should
decide the Meralco-GSIS case. To our mind, Justice Roxas' full knowledge of the existence of the
chairmanship dispute and the differences of opinion among his colleagues regarding the proper
interpretation of the rules should have all the more induced him to wait for a final resolution of the dispute
before deciding the case. His "rush to judgment," as one member of the Panel termed it, despite the
pendency of the chairmanship dispute and his own request for an opinion from the Presiding Justice, only
opened his act of deciding the case to more questions and attacks not only from the other justices but
from the public as well.

The Panel was not limited to the chairmanship dispute nor to the bribery allegations of Justice Jose L.
Sabio, Jr., as Justice Roxas claims to believe. Moreover, the questions asked by the Panel and his
colleagues in relation to his actions in the Meralco-GSIS case could lead to no other conclusion but that
the propriety of Justice Roxas' conduct was under scrutiny in these proceedings. In any event, Justice
Roxas was given by the Panel ample opportunity to present his side and his evidence and to cross-
examine the testimonies of the other participants in the investigation.

(b) Motion for Reconsideration dated September 15, 2008 filed by Justice Jose L. Sabio;

(a) review the portion of our Decision finding Justice Sabio guilty of simple misconduct and conduct
unbecoming of a justice of the Court of Appeals and (b) remove the two month suspension imposed upon
him.

NOTE: ON LEAVE

(c) Motion for Reconsideration dated September 24, 2008 filed by Presiding Justice Conrado M.
Vasquez, Jr.;

(d) A Plea for Compassion and Clemency dated September 22, 2008 filed by Justice Myrna Dimaranan
Vidal (which we shall consider a motion for reconsideration); and

(e) Motion for Reconsideration dated September 26, 2008 filed by Mr. Francis de Borja