22

Jesus D. Carbajosa vs. Judge Hannibal R. Patricio (A.M. No. MTJ-13-1834, October 2, 2013)
Facts
Jesus D. Carbajosa is the plaintiff in Criminal Case No. 2540 for grave coercion against accused
Dolores Bieles tried before the Municipal Trial Court of President Roxas-Pilar, President Roxas,
Capiz. The MCTC convicted Bieles of the crime charged against her. This was further affirmed by the
Regional Trial Court of Roxas City and eventually by the Court of Appeals. The Supreme Court
denied Bieles petition for review on certiorari and the subsequent motion for reconsideration. With
this, the Supreme Court issued an Entry of Judgment stating that its Resolution of August 13, 2008
has become final and executory. Carbajosa then filed a Motion for Execution of Judgment before the
MCTC presided by herein respondent Judge Patricio. Bieles on the other hand, opposed the motion
saying that she sent a letter to the Chief Justice for a review of her case on the merits. She also
provided evidence that it was acted upon when a first endorsement requesting the Clerk of Court of
the Third Division to include the case in its agenda. Judge Patricio issued an order to hold in abeyance
the resolution of Carbajosas Motion for Execution of Judgment and await for the result of the
endorsement made by the Chief Justice. Judge Patricio denied Carbajosas motion to recall the Order
approving the substitution of Bieles property bond by a cash bond but granted Bieles motion to
suspend proceedings. Aggrieved by the judgment, Carbajosa filed this administrative complaint for
Gross Ignorance of the Law, Manifest Bias, and Partiality.
Issue
Whether or not respondent judge is guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law, Manifest Bias and Partiality.
Ruling
Yes. By repeatedly denying the Motion for Execution of Judgment filed by Carbajosa, the respondent
judge delayed the administration of justice. The Supreme Court stated that The issuance of a writ of
execution for a final and executory judgment is ministerial. In other words, a judge is not given the
discretion whether or not to implement the judgment. He is to effect execution without delay and
supervise implementation strictly in accordance with the judgment.

23
Mamasaw Sultan Ali vs. Hon. Baguinda Ali Pacalna, et al. (A.M. No. MTJ-03-1505, November 27,
2013)
Facts
Baguinda Ali Pacalna was a former presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Balindog
in Lanao del Sur. He was faced with different cases filed against him during his incumbency. He was
found administratively liable for dishonesty and gross ignorance of the law which constitutes a
violation of the Code of Judicial conduct when he delayed the proceedings in an election case which
led to the complainant not being able to run as a candidate for barangay chairman. After the said
judgment, he was again held administratively liable for misusing his authority in taking custody of an
accused by merely issuing a signed handwritten acknowledgement receipt. This second administrative
offense committed by respondent also led to the OCAs filing of a criminal complaint for obstruction
of justice against him. He filed this petition for judicial clemency in order for him to be reinstated
back to his position as a judge.
Issue

Whether or not Judge Pacalna can be granted judicial clemency.

Ruling
The Supreme Court denied the petition. The Court did not find any relevant circumstances to justify
judicial clemency given the fact that respondent judge committed grave transgressions. Judge Pacalna
did not present proof of his professed repentance. The Court stated that a judge is the visible
representation of the law and of justice. Thus, in order to safeguard the integrity of the judiciary, the
Court deemed it proper not to grant the petition of those who have fallen short of the exacting
standards of judicial conduct.

24
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Raymund D. Lopez and Edgar M. Tutaan (A.M. No.
MTJ-11-1790, December 11, 2013)
Facts
The OCA audit team conducted a judicial audit in connection with the compulsory retirement of the
former judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Palo, Leyte, Judge Raymundo D. Lopez. Upon
examining the cases in the said court, the audit team found that fifteen criminal and eight civil cases
were not decided; eight criminal cases and eight civil cases were not resolved and there were delays in
deciding seven criminal cases and two civil cases. The case was re-docketed as a regular
administrative case against Judge Raymundo for gross dereliction of duty/ gross inefficiency and
serious misconduct. Respondent Edgar Tutaan, the Clerk of Court of the said branch, was likewise
questioned for submitting false Monthly Report of Cases and Docket Inventory. The respondent judge
reasoned out that he failed to decide cases because of certain health problems and personal
circumstances. Respondent Tutaan on the other hand said that the monthly report form required only a
list of cases submitted for decision which is why it was incomplete. He also omitted some of the cases
because he acceded to the request of Judge Lopez to exclude the same.
Issues
Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of gross dereliction of duty/ gross ineffiency.
Whether or not the respondent clerk of court is guilty of misconduct.
Ruling
The Supreme Court held Judge Lopez guilty of gross dereliction of duty/ gross inefficiency. The Court
emphasized that it is the duty of judges to administer justice and decide cases promptly because of the
principle justice delayed is justice denied. The excuses interposed by respondent judge on his health
problems and other personal circumstances would have been taken into consideration if he properly
asked the Court for the extension to decide the cases. The Court stated that ..no judge can choose to
prolong, on his own, the period for deciding cases beyond the period authorized by law. Without an
order of extension granted by the Court, a failure to decide a single case within the required period
rightly constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.
The Supreme Court held Edgar Tutaan guilty of simple misconduct. The Court stated that branch
clerk of courts also have important roles to play in the administration of justice. They are charged
with the efficient recording, filing and management of court records, besides having administrative
supervision over court personnel. In omitting to list those undecided cases, Tutaaan exhibited in
indifference to the Courts directives of listing in the monthly report all those cases still undecided but
are submitted for decision. This act of his constituted simple misconduct or a transgression of some
established rule of action, an unlawful negligence committed by a public officer.