Magdamo v Pahimulin
AM No. 662-MJ, 30 Sept 1976
Antonio, J.:
FACTS:
MTC Judge Teodory Pahimulin of MTC Binangonan, Rizal was charged on 19 Oct 1972 with malicious delay in the administration of justice in the delaying of preliminary investigation of the complaint failed on 13 Mar 1970 for frustrated homicide against Lourdes Garcia, and did not resolved it until 17 Oct 1972, violating Sec 129 of the Revised Admin Code. Also, that the period of 18 months that case remained unresolved, he continued to collect his salaries as MTC judge, falsely certifying that all civil and criminal cases in him for a period of 90 days had been decided.
Pahimulin’s answer:
The parties themselves were responsible for the delay in view of the repeated motions for postponements of investigation and their delay in submitting their respective memoranda.
CFI Rizal through Judge Carolina Grino-Aquino:
The complaint was filed on 13 Mar. 1970. A warrant of arrest was immediately issued and was served on 23 Mar. the preliminary investigation was first scheduled on 14 Apr. the case was scheduled for hearing 21 times: 9 of which were postponed by complainant, 1 was postponed by the accused, 4 were cancelled by court due to its crowded calendar. Parties asked for extension for the filing of their respective memoranda but eventually no memoranda were filed.
On 27 Apr 1971, the case was submitted to resolution and the 90 period for resolving it expired on 27 July. It was only on 17 Oct 1972 when the respondent remanded the case to the CFI.
During the 15 month period, that the case was pending, Pahimulin collected his salaries upon his certification that all civil and criminal cases upon him had been determined or decided.
ISSUE:
W/N Pahimulin was guilty of malicious delaying the administration of justice.
HELD:
Yes. The Court ruled that the delay of the investigation was due partly to the complainant herself. The Court goes with the conclusion that the delay was due to the liberality of respondent in acceding to the motions of the parties for postponement. In order that a judge could be held criminally liable for violation of Art. 207, delay must have been done maliciously, with deliberate intent.
On the matter of false Certificate of Service, the Court ruled that it is due to Pahimulin’s inefficiency and negligence. It is desirable that a judge should at all times manifest fidelity to the trust reposed to him. The people’s faith in the administration of justice would be greatly impaired if decisions are long in coming.
The Court ruled that while it may be true that respondent did not act in bad faith in making his reports, nonetheless there can be no doubt that he has shown lack of due diligence in the performance of his judicial functions, resulting in the undue delay in the administration of justice.
Hence, the Court finds Pahimulin guilty of negligence for his failure to terminate and remand the preliminary investigation and for his lack of due care in the preparation of his certificate of service.
