Daniel Fajardo V Judge Antonio Natino

Daniel Fajardo v Judge Antonio Natino
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2479

Dec. 13, 2017
Facts:
Judge Natino was charged by petitioner Fajardo of the following:
1. Violation of the 90-day period within a case is to be resolved.
Civil case no. 20225 was submitted for decision on Jan. 23, 2007. A decision was
only issued on April 21, 2010 more than 3 years than the 90-day period.
Judge Natino averred that he was being judicious in deciding, he leaned towards
“quality of administration of justice” than “speedy disposition of cases”
Then, his assumption as Acting Executive Judge in the same year and as a full-
fledged Executive Judge in 2008 up to 2010, hampered his case disposal during
the period as his tasks included hearing and deciding, not only regular cases, but
also urgent administrative cases referred by the court administrator
2. Delay in the release of the decision
The decision for civil case no. 20225 was released four months, August 17, 2010
after it was issued.
Judge Natino averred that the delay was due to the stenographer who transcribed
the notes for said case resigned.
Iloilo city hall was also under renovation from April to May 2010, & some bomb
threats that the city hall experienced which led to the suspension of work causing
his backlog.
Power outrages also frequented the city which caused the loss of some changes in
the draft of the decision for said case
3. Falsification of Certificate Service
Judge Natino failed to resolve the civil case within 90 days yet he continued to
receive his salary.
He also argued that the circumstantial delay in rendering the decision did not
necessarily mean he falsified certificates of service
4. Failure to resolve the matters covered in the Motion to Show Cause for Contempt
The motion to show cause was never acted upon by RTC
Judge Natino refuted the same citing his full order in oct. 18, 2010
The said order stated the circumstances which led to the postponements of the
subject motions' hearings, as well as the court's actions thereafter.
5. Entertaining a second motion for reconsideration
The decision for civil case no. 07-29298 was already final yet Judge Natino
entertained a second motion for reconsideration to gain leverage in his request for
a certain amount
Investigation
Resolution dated April 3, 2013, the complaint was then referred to the Executive justice of the
Court of Appeals, Cebu to be raffled to the Associate Justices therein for investigation, report,
and recommendation
Fajardo and his counsel failed to appear despite notice.
Judge Natino was allowed to testify and present documentary evidence:
Medical records showing his health problems since 1990 & medical certificate showing
he was admitted in Dec. 6-8 2010
Evidence of his appointment as Executive Judge from 2008 to 2010 with indorsements
and reports on the administrative cases that he heard as Executive Judge in addition to his
regular case loads
Certification that the Iloilo City Hall was renovated from August 2009 to July 2010
Certification from the Panay Electric Company, stating that the area where Iloilo Hall of
Justice was situated experienced a total of 201 power outrages from January 2007 to
August 2010
His approved leave applications from 2007 to 2010 to prove that he followed all the civil
service rules insofar as his attendance is concerned
Certification from the Office of the Court· Administrator (OCA) dated January 30, 2015,
stating that he had been filing his certificates of service since 2006
A copy of the Order dated October 18, 2010 in Civil Case No. 07-29298 to refute the
charge that he did not act on Panay News, Inc.'s Motion to Show Cause, as well as the
charge that he entertained a second motion for reconsideration
In her Report and Recommendation, Justice Maxino noted Fajardo's failure to appear in the
hearings and to present evidence to suppmt his allegations against Judge Natino. With that, the
Investigating Justice found no merit in all charges against Judge Natino, except as regards the
long overdue action in the resolution of Civil Case No. 20225, for want of evidence. Hence,
Justice Maxino recommended the imposition of a fine. amounting to P20,000, with a stem
warning that a repetition of the same or similar act in the future would be dealt with more
severely.
Issue: whether Judge Natino is guilty of charges against him
SC ruling:
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendations of the Investigating Justice, as adopted
by the OCA except for the penalty charged.
Indeed, aside from Fajardo's uncorroborated allegations, the records are bereft of any proof to
support the allegation on the intentional delay on the release of the Civil Case No. 20225, much
less the charge of corruption against Judge Natino.
Likewise, the alleged falsification of certificates of service was never proven. There is no clear
evidence that Judge Natino intentionally, if at all, falsified his monthly certificate of service
Judge Natino is only guilty of undue delay in resolving civil case no. 20225
Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution provides that lower courts have three months
within which to decide cases or resolve matters submitted to them for resolution. Moreover,
Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of their business
promptly and decide cases within the required period.
Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in
the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and
confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.
Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross
inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge.
Certainly, We have considered the justifications and explanations on such delay, proffered by
Judge Natino, which, while may be recognized as true and reasonable, are not sufficient to
exonerate him from liability. To be sure, the mandatory nature of the period to decide cases
provided under the Constitution cannot be considered as beyond the limits of acceptability or
fairness
Thus, the Court has allowed reasonable extensions of time needed to decide cases, but such
extensions must first be requested from the Court. Judge Natino did not request for extension
Under Section 9(1),30 Rule 140, as amended by Administrative Matter No. 01-8-10-SC,31
undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge, which is penalized with
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three
months or a fine of more than Pl 0,000 but not not more than P20,000.
We find that the imposition of a fine amounting to Pl 0,000 is commensurate to the offense that
he committed.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the Court finds Judge Antonio M. Natino, former judge of
the Regional Trial Court of Iloilo City, Branch 26, GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a
decision, for which he is FINED in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (Pl 0,000), to be deducted
from his· retirement benefits withheld by the Financial Management Office, Office of the Court
Administrator. Thereafter, the balance of his retirement benefits shall be released without
unnecessary delay.

Daniel Fajardo V Judge Antonio Natino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daniel Fajardo V Judge Antonio Natino

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daniel Fajardo V Judge Antonio Natino

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Daniel Fajardo v Judge Antonio Natino

A.M. No. RTJ-16-2479

Issue: whether Judge Natino is guilty of charges against him

You might also like