SC sacks judge who sat on cases for 13 years

Justice delayed is justice denied.

The Supreme Court (SC) has dismissed a Caloocan City judge for sitting on two cases for 13 years and giving lame excuses for his shortcomings.

In a per curiam decision dated Aug. 12, the SC found Judge Jaime Hamoy of Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 130 "unfit to don the judicial robe and to perform the functions of a magistrate" because of gross misconduct and inefficiency punishable by dismissal from the service.

The SC also forfeited all of Hamoy’s retirementbenefits, except his accrued leave credits, and banned him from seeking reemployment in government, including state—controlled corporations.

The SC noted it had already admonished the judge on March 20, 2002 for failure to decide on pending motions within the period prescribed by law and warned that any future transgressions would be dealt with more harshly.

The complaint against Hamoy was filed in 1997 by Jose Fernandez, counsel for two cases pending at RTC Branch 15 of Zamboanga City, where the judge was previously assigned.

Fernandez assailed the judge for not acting on the cases for 13 years and bringing along the records of the cases with him when he was transferred to the Caloocan City RTC.

Despite repeated requests by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Hamoy failed to submit his explanation.

Only when threatened with sanction did Hamoy, who said he "simply forgot" to file his comment, finally account for the delay.

Hamoy said his utility aide in Caloocan City had mixed up the records of the cases. When the records were found, he could not attend to them because, as the judge of the city’s only family court, he was loaded with cases.

The judge said he did not intend to disregard the directives of the SC but had to deal first with the many cases pending at his court.

The OCA recommended that the judge be fined P40,000 for his failure to decide the cases within the prescribed period and warned that any further delay would result in a more severe penalty of either suspension or dismissal from the service.

But the SC said the suggested penalty was not commensurate to the gravity of the "nonfeasance and malfeasance" committed by Hamoy.

The SC said the judge could not be absolved from the liability of his court personnel and that it was his duty to devise an efficient filing system that would allow him to monitor the flow of his cases and to decide on them on time.

The SC also noted that the judge did not even ask for a reasonable extension of time to resolve the cases but left them in limbo for 13 years and transferred the records without permission from the OCA. The court said this was important to dispel any suspicions that the judge was holding on to the records for malicious or corrupt motives.

Compounding Hamoy’s offense was his delay in complying with the orders of the OCA.

"Respondent judge’s impious defiance of the directives of the OCA and of this Court borders on contumacy which deserves no compassion. He cannot simply shrug off his non-compliance and pass the blame to his faltering memory to justify his inaction," the SC said.

The SC said Hamoy’s explanation showed his "cavalier attitude" and mocked the court’s "authority."

The court also criticized the judge for claiming he had no pending cases to resolve when he collected his salaries.

"A judge who fails to decide cases within the prescribed period but collects his salary with a false certificate is guilty of dishonesty amounting to gross misconduct," it said.