1968 / Jul

A.C. No. 122-J - JULY 1968 - PHILIPPINE JURISPRUDENCE CASE NUMBERCASE TITLE A.C. No. 122-JJuly 31, 1968 Nicolas A. Superable, Jr. vs. Godofredo Escalona G.R. No. L-24140July 31, 1968 Vicente Arrieta vs. Malayan Sawmill Company, et al. G.R. No. L-23689July 31, 1968 Mayo Lopez Carillo, et al. vs. Allied Workers' Association of the Philippines (AWA), et al. G.R. No. L-23491July 31, 1968 Taurus Taxi Co., Inc., et al. vs. Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. G.R. No. L-23261July 31, 1968 Ernesto Veluz vs. Socorro Veluz, et al. G.R. No. L-23245July 31, 1968 Juanita Rivera vs. Silvino Curamen G.R. No. L-22663July 31, 1968 Hoc Huat Trading vs. Guillermo S Santos, et al. G.R. No. L-22577July 31, 1968 Benjamin Wenceslao, et al. vs. Carmen Zaragosa, Inc. G.R. No. L-22542July 31, 1968 Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs. Salvador Celerio, et al. G.R. No. L-22159July 31, 1968 Emiliano Castro, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-13938July 31, 1968 In re: Christian Harris, Pedro Butiong Christian Harris, Pedro Butiong vs. Surigao Consolidated Mining Co. G.R. No. L-27248July 31, 1968 Norberto dela Rea vs. Ismael Mathay, Sr., et al. G.R. No. L-27246July 31, 1968 Ismael Mathay, Sr., et al. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. G.R. No. L-27084July 31, 1968 Angela Estate, Inc., et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, et al. G.R. No. L-27072July 31, 1968 Surigao Mineral Reservation Board, et al. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. G.R. No. L-26192July 31, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Mana-ay, et al. G.R. No. L-26082July 31, 1968 Norberto dela Rea vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. G.R. No. L-25550July 31, 1968 Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company vs. W. de los Angeles, et al. G.R. No. L-24987July 31, 1968 Central Azucarera Don Pedro vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. G.R. No. L-24924July 31, 1968 Cresencia Antonel,et al. vs. Land Tenure Administration, et al. G.R. No. L-24668July 31, 1968 Andres Lapitan vs. Scandia, Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-24557July 31, 1968 City of Manila vs. Tarlac Development Corp. G.R. No. L-24514July 31, 1968 Saura Import & Export Co., Inc., et al. vs. Arsenio Soldium, et al. G.R. No. L-24481July 31, 1968 City of Manila vs. Army & Navy Club of Manila G.R. No. L-24472July 31, 1968 Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Pospero Gabatin, et al. G.R. No. L-24469July 31, 1968 City of Manila vs. Manila Lodge No. 761, Benevolent And Protective Order of Elks, Inc. G.R. No. L-24414July 31, 1968 Dionicia J. Cid, et al. vs. Nancy W. Burnaman, et al. G.R. No. L-24348July 30, 1968 Felicidad Vierneza vs. Commissioner of Customs G.R. No. L-22304July 30, 1968 Samar Mining Co., Inc. vs. Francisco P. Arnado, et al. G.R. No. L-24566July 29, 1968 Agricultural Credit & Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) vs. Alpha Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., et al. G.R. No. L-24072July 29, 1968 Antonio Ma. Cui, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-24020-21July 29, 1968 Florencio Reyes, et al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. G.R. No. L-23919July 29, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo S. Santos G.R. No. L-23606July 29, 1968 Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Company, Inc. vs. Secuties & Exchange Commission G.R. No. L-23133July 29, 1968 Vicente S. del Rosario, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. G.R. No. L-22320July 29, 1968 Mercedes Ruth Cobb-Perez, et al. vs. Gregorio Lantin, et al. G.R. No. L-21059July 29, 1968 Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, et al. G.R. No. L-20794July 29, 1968 Dy En Siu Co, et al. vs. Local Civil Registrar of the City of Manila, et al. G.R. No. L-20619July 29, 1968 Reparations Commissions, et al. vs. Higinio B. Macadaeg, et al. G.R. No. L-20158July 29, 1968 Candelario Almendras, et al. vs. Amado del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-28842July 29, 1968 Faustino Cortez vs. Onofre Villaluz, et al. G.R. No. L-28524July 29, 1968 Ernesto Navarro, et al. vs. Tito V. Tizon, et al. G.R. No. L-27741July 29, 1968 R.B. Industrial Development Company, Limited, et al. vs. Manuel Lopez Enage, et al. G.R. No. L-26568July 29, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Diego Malillos, et al. G.R. No. L-26353July 29, 1968 Perla C. Pacursa vs. Simeon del Rosario, et al. G.R. No. L-24984July 29, 1968 Phil. Comm., Electronics & Electricity Workers' Fed., et al. vs. Ramon O. Nolasco, et al. G.R. No. L-24955July 29, 1968 American Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. G.R. No. L-24576July 29, 1968 Martiniano P. Vivo, et al. vs. Agustin P. Montesa, et al. G.R. No. L-24444-45July 29, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Dorique, et al. G.R. No. L-24396July 29, 1968 Santiago P. Alalayan, et al. vs. National Power Corporation, et al. G.R. No. L-24388July 29, 1968 Regal Manufacturing Employees Association, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. G.R. No. L-19852July 29, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Mansueto Jamero, et al. G.R. No. L-23934July 25, 1968 Hidpon P. Del Rosario, et al. vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. G.R. No. L-23796July 23, 1968 Lourdes P. San Diego vs. Fernando Hernandez, et al. G.R. No. L-22682July 23, 1968 Gorgonio Pabiling vs. Isidro Parinacio, et al. G.R. No. L-18598July 23, 1968 Tan Guan vs. Mariano Nable, et al. G.R. No. L-24099July 20, 1968 Clotilde Correos, et al. vs. Ladislao P. Valenzuela, et al. G.R. No. L-22002July 20, 1968 Canuto A. Lim, et al. vs. Tomas V. Sabarre, et al. G.R. No. L-21027July 20, 1968 In re: Teodoro T. Cruz, Juan Gutierrez, et al. Teodoro T. Cruz, Juan Gutierrez, et al. vs. Luciano T. Cruz, et al. G.R. No. L-26197July 20, 1968 Adelo C. Rivera vs. San Miguel Brewery Corporation, Inc. G.R. No. L-24951July 20, 1968 In re: Jose Chua Jose Chua vs. Republic of the Philippines G.R. No. L-24997July 18, 1968 Philippine National Bank vs. Teresita Osete, et al. A.C. No. 102July 15, 1968 Philippines Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Emiliano C. Tabigne G.R. No. L-24419July 15, 1968 Leonora Estoque vs. Elena M. Pajimula, et al. G.R. No. L-21175July 15, 1968 Pascuala Sotto Pahang vs. Filemon Sotto G.R. No. L-18414July 15, 1968 Antonio M. Perez vs. J, Antonio Araneta G.R. No. L-24843July 15, 1968 Members of the Cult of San Miguel Arcangel vs. Pedro Narciso G.R. No. L-28561July 8, 1968 Barney French vs. Commissions on Elections, et al. G.R. No. L-24804July 5, 1968 People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Parayno, et al. G.R. No. L-24990July 3, 1968 William C. Pfleider vs. Republic, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc. Nicolas A. Superable, Jr. vs. Godofredo Escalona Vicente Arrieta vs. Malayan Sawmill Company, et al. Mayo Lopez Carillo, et al. vs. Allied Workers' Association of the Philippines (AWA), et al. Taurus Taxi Co., Inc., et al. vs. Capital Insurance & Surety Co., Inc. Ernesto Veluz vs. Socorro Veluz, et al. Juanita Rivera vs. Silvino Curamen Hoc Huat Trading vs. Guillermo S Santos, et al. Benjamin Wenceslao, et al. vs. Carmen Zaragosa, Inc. Luzon Stevedoring Corporation vs. Salvador Celerio, et al. Emiliano Castro, Jr. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. In re: Christian Harris, Pedro Butiong Christian Harris, Pedro Butiong vs. Surigao Consolidated Mining Co. Norberto dela Rea vs. Ismael Mathay, Sr., et al. Ismael Mathay, Sr., et al. vs. Francisco Arca, et al. Angela Estate, Inc., et al. vs. Court of First Instance of Negros Occidental, et al. Surigao Mineral Reservation Board, et al. vs. Gaudencio Cloribel, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Lorenzo Mana-ay, et al. Norberto dela Rea vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. Plaridel Surety & Insurance Company vs. W. de los Angeles, et al. Central Azucarera Don Pedro vs. Workmen's Compensation Commission, et al. Cresencia Antonel,et al. vs. Land Tenure Administration, et al. Andres Lapitan vs. Scandia, Inc., et al. City of Manila vs. Tarlac Development Corp. Saura Import & Export Co., Inc., et al. vs. Arsenio Soldium, et al. City of Manila vs. Army & Navy Club of Manila Philippine Rabbit Bus Lines, Inc. vs. Pospero Gabatin, et al. City of Manila vs. Manila Lodge No. 761, Benevolent And Protective Order of Elks, Inc. Dionicia J. Cid, et al. vs. Nancy W. Burnaman, et al. Felicidad Vierneza vs. Commissioner of Customs Samar Mining Co., Inc. vs. Francisco P. Arnado, et al. Agricultural Credit & Cooperative Financing Administration (ACCFA) vs. Alpha Insurance & Surety Co., Inc., et al. Antonio Ma. Cui, et al. vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Florencio Reyes, et al. vs. Commissioner of Internal Revenue, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Guillermo S. Santos Alhambra Cigar & Cigarette Manufacturing Company, Inc. vs. Secuties & Exchange Commission Vicente S. del Rosario, et al. vs. Court of Industrial Relations, et al. Mercedes Ruth Cobb-Perez, et al. vs. Gregorio Lantin, et al. Director of Lands vs. Court of Appeals, et al. Dy En Siu Co, et al. vs. Local Civil Registrar of the City of Manila, et al. Reparations Commissions, et al. vs. Higinio B. Macadaeg, et al. Candelario Almendras, et al. vs. Amado del Rosario, et al. Faustino Cortez vs. Onofre Villaluz, et al. Ernesto Navarro, et al. vs. Tito V. Tizon, et al. R.B. Industrial Development Company, Limited, et al. vs. Manuel Lopez Enage, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Diego Malillos, et al. Perla C. Pacursa vs. Simeon del Rosario, et al. Phil. Comm., Electronics & Electricity Workers' Fed., et al. vs. Ramon O. Nolasco, et al. American Insurance Co. vs. Republic of the Philippines, et al. Martiniano P. Vivo, et al. vs. Agustin P. Montesa, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Romeo Dorique, et al. Santiago P. Alalayan, et al. vs. National Power Corporation, et al. Regal Manufacturing Employees Association, et al. vs. Andres Reyes, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mansueto Jamero, et al. Hidpon P. Del Rosario, et al. vs. Abelardo Subido, et al. Lourdes P. San Diego vs. Fernando Hernandez, et al. Gorgonio Pabiling vs. Isidro Parinacio, et al. Tan Guan vs. Mariano Nable, et al. Clotilde Correos, et al. vs. Ladislao P. Valenzuela, et al. Canuto A. Lim, et al. vs. Tomas V. Sabarre, et al. In re: Teodoro T. Cruz, Juan Gutierrez, et al. Teodoro T. Cruz, Juan Gutierrez, et al. vs. Luciano T. Cruz, et al. Adelo C. Rivera vs. San Miguel Brewery Corporation, Inc. In re: Jose Chua Jose Chua vs. Republic of the Philippines Philippine National Bank vs. Teresita Osete, et al. Philippines Association of Free Labor Unions vs. Emiliano C. Tabigne Leonora Estoque vs. Elena M. Pajimula, et al. Pascuala Sotto Pahang vs. Filemon Sotto Antonio M. Perez vs. J, Antonio Araneta Members of the Cult of San Miguel Arcangel vs. Pedro Narciso Barney French vs. Commissions on Elections, et al. People of the Philippines vs. Mariano Parayno, et al. William C. Pfleider vs. Republic, et al. The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation, Inc.

Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

EN BANC

A.C. No. 122-J July 31, 1968

NICOLAS A. SUPERABLE, JR.,complainant,
vs.
HON. GODOFREDO ESCALONA,respondent.

ZALDIVAR,J.:

Nicolas A. Superable, Jr., City Judge of Tacloban City, filed before this Court a formal complaint, on January 2, 1968, supported by affidavits, charging Hon. Godofredo Escalona, Presiding Judge of Branch I of the Court of First Instance of Leyte, with: (1) "inefficiency, incompetency and falsification of public documents"; and (2) "serious misconduct due to violation of oath of office and/or incompetency."¹

Anent the first charge, complainant alleges that the respondent was not holding session for five hours in hearing cases every day, as in the fact he often times held session for only one hour, or less, a day, then would suspend the session till the next day, and as a result "the grinding of the wheel of justice in his court is very slow";²that respondent Judge was not rendering his decisions within 90 days after the submission of the cases for decision, as exemplified by Civil Case No. 3636 entitled "Cesarea Metran vs. Victor Tuazon" which, having been submitted for decision on March 23, 1967, was decided only in November, 1967, although the decision was dated July 2, 1967, and that from this very fact alone it was obvious that when respondent collected his salary for the months of July, August, September, and October, 1967, he falsified his certificate of service.

Anent the second charge, complainant alleged that respondent Judge allowed himself to be influenced or pressured by the Hon. Marcelino R. Veloso, Majority Floor Leader of the House of Representatives, in his actuations in Administrative Case No. 26 involving the complainant as the City Judge of Tacloban City, wherein respondent Judge, as investigator, made in his report findings of facts not supported by the evidence and the law, and instead of recommending the dropping of the case because it had already been the subject matter of another investigation — Administrative Case No. 25 — he recommended that herein complainant be severely reprimanded.

The complaint prayed that the corresponding disciplinary action be meted against respondent Judge.

1äwphï1.ñët

In his answer, supported by affidavits, respondent Judge urges that the instant complaint has become moot and academic because he had been automatically retired on January 12, 1968 for having reached the retirement age of seventy years. In answer to the first charge, respondent Judge denied the charge that he was holding sessions for only one hour a day, and in support of said denial he attached the affidavit of Atty. Filomeno D. Arteche, Jr., the President of the Leyte Bar Association who stated that the Leyte Bar Association holds high esteem the integrity and honesty of Judge Godofredo Escalona and that it is not true that Judge Godofredo Escalona was holding court sessions only one hour a day.³Respondent Judge likewise denied the charge that he was inefficient and incompetent, the denial being supported by the certificate of the Clerk of Court, regarding the number of cases that he disposed of yearly⁴and by the fact that he had decided all the cases, civil and criminal, that were pending in his court before his retirement. Respondent Judge explained that his decision in Civil Case No. 3636 was not rendered within the real reglementary period of ninety days from the date the case was submitted for decision because from the number of days that elapsed from March 13, 1967 when the case was submitted for decision, until July 2, 1967 when the court stenographer wrote on the typewriter the decision, 25 days, that is, from March 14 to March 28, 1967 and from June 10 to June 19, 1967 when he was on sick and vacation leaves, had to be deducted, and that the delay in the advice of the notices of the decision to the parties was due to lack of personnel in the office of the Clerk of Court, which fact is certified to by the Special Deputy Clerk of Court.⁵Respondent judge denied that he had allowed himself to be influenced by Congressman Marcelino Veloso in his actuations in Administrative Case No. 26, and in support thereof he attached supporting affidavits, including that of Congressman Veloso himself who stated that he had never seen the respondent Judge about any case pending in the latter's sala.⁶

We have examined carefully the record of this case, and We are persuaded that the charges against respondent Judge have no merit, hence the complaint should be dismissed.⁷

The charge of inefficiency cannot be sustained. Respondent Judge's output of decided cases from the year 1964-65 to the date of his retirement on January 12, 1968, compares favorably with that of the Judges of the other branches of the Court of First Instance of Leyte. The certificate of the Clerk of Court shows that during the fiscal year 1964-65 respondent Judge disposed of 224 cases, while the Judge in Branch II disposed of 273 cases, and the Judge of Branch IV disposed of 298 cases; in 1965-66, respondent Judge disposed of 291 cases, the Judge in Branch II disposed of 295 cases, and the Judge in Branch IV disposed of 288 cases; in 1966-67, respondent Judge disposed of 188 cases, the Judge in Branch II disposed of 221 cases, and the Judge in Branch IV disposed of 269 cases. From January 2, 1968 to his retirement on January 12, 1968, respondent Judge disposed of 7 cases. The reason why respondent Judge disposed of only 188 cases in the fiscal year 1966-67 was because he had been on sick leave for one month.

The charge of alleged falsification of the service certificate by respondent Judge in order to collect his salary is a mere presumption and conclusion of complainant this fact is evident even from the wordings of the complaint. We find satisfactory the explanation of respondent Judge regarding his failure to decide Civil Case No. 3636 within the period of ninety days from the date the case was submitted to him for decision.

The charge of alleged serious misconduct on the part of respondent Judge cannot be entertained. The alleged conversation between respondent Judge and Congressman Marcelino Veloso whereby the Judge was alleged to have been pressured by the Congressman to recommend the dismissal of the herein complainant, in Administrative Case No. 26, has been vehemently denied not only by the Congressman himself but also by the very person who, according to the affidavits (Annexes F and G) supporting the complaint, were present during said conversation (Exhs. 7, 8, and 9). Even if it be assumed that said conversation did take place, there is no clear showing that the actuation of respondent Judge in Administrative Case No. 26 was in any way influenced by Congressman Veloso. The complainant claims that Congressman Veloso pressured respondent Judge to recommend his dismissal, yet it appears that respondent Judge simply recommended that complainant be reprimanded. A charge of partiality against a Judge, this Court has said, is to be expected from disgruntled lawyers.⁸It is to be expected also from disgruntled respondents in administrative cases. Furthermore, even if it were true, as alleged in the complaint — although this is not clearly shown — that respondent Judge, in his report in Administrative Case No. 26, made findings of fact not supported by evidence, such would be error of judgment, and there being no proof that such actuation was due to an intention to violate the law or was in disregard of well-known rules, that actuation would not suffice to constitute "serious misconduct."⁹

WHEREFORE, the Court resolved that the complaint in the instant administrative case should be as it is hereby, dismissed. It is so ordered.

Concepcion, C.J., Reyes, J.B.L., Dizon, Makalintal Sanchez, Angeles and Fernando, JJ., concur.
Castro, J., took no part.

Footnotes

¹As quoted from complaint.

²Quoted from complaint.

³Exhibit 2.

⁴Exhibit 3.

⁵Exhibit 5.

⁶Exhibits 7, 8 and 9.

⁷Section 2, Rule 140, Rules of Court.

⁸In re Impeachment of Flordeliza, 44 Phil. 608, 611.

⁹In re Impeachment of Horilleno, 43 Phil. 212, 214.