Unjustified

All cases or matters filed before the Supreme Court must be decided or resolved within 24 months while those filed before the lower collegiate courts, in 12 months and all the other lower courts in three months, unless reduced by the Supreme Court (Article VIII, Section 15, Constitution). This is the rule violated by this woman Justice (AM) of the Court of Appeals (CA).

Justice AM was a member of the Ninth division of the CA to which the case of a petition for review of the decision of the Regional Trial Court of Makati (RTC) was raffled. The RTC case was for damages filed by lawyer (RMG) against a country club (ACCI) which disqualified him as a candidate and ousted him as a member. The RTC decided in favor of RMG and ordered his immediate reinstatement as a member.

In the petition before the CA, ACCI applied for a temporary restraining order (TRO) with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. The CA granted the TRO and when it expired, the CA issued a Writ of Preliminary Injunction with Justice AM as the ponente. On September 8, 2005, RMG questioned this ruling before the Supreme on a petition for certiorari. Then on September 28, 2005, RMG also filed before the CA, a Motion for Inhibition of Justice AM claiming that the issuance of the writ was against the law.

Even as the SC has already ruled on RMG’s petition for certiorari on April 11, 2007 by dismissing it for failure to show that the CA gravely abused its discretion in granting the writ, Justice AM did not act yet on the Motion for her inhibition filed by RMG. Thus on August 20, 2008, RMG filed an administrative complaint against Justice AM for delay in resolving his Motion for Inhibition while at the same time reiterating said motion.

Finally on October 8, 2008 Justice AM acted on the motion and inhibited herself from the case. Then subsequently she filed her comment on RMG’s administrative complaint, claiming that she deemed it appropriate to defer any action on RMG’s motion for inhibition in view of the certiorari case filed by RMG with the SC. Was Justice AM justified in her delay on resolving the motion for inhibition?

No. A petition for certiorari shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent (CA) from further proceeding with the case (Section 7, Rule 65 of the Rules of Court). This rule must be strictly adhered to by the appellate and lower courts notwithstanding the possibility that the proceedings undertaken by them tend to or would render nugatory the pending petition before the SC.

But even gratuitously crediting Justice AM’s justification for the delay, since the SC resolved the petition for certiorari on April 11, 2007, Justice AM is still unduly delayed in resolving a mere motion for inhibition only on October 8, 2008 after the SC referred this administrative complaint to the appellate court and after RMG filed a reiterative motion for inhibition. This is still more than the 12 months period required by the Constitution for the resolution of said motion.

Under the circumstances, Justice AM should be fined P15,000 pursuant to Section 11 (b) in relation to Section 9(1) of Rule 14 of the Rules of Court (Gonzales vs. Tolentino, A.M. No. CA-10-49-J, January 28, 2010, 611 SCRA 179).

Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.

E-mail at: [email protected]