|
Wednesday, December 08, 2004
Speak out: Judge Suerte’s side
By Atty. Rico C. Rentuza
Spokesperson for Judge Ildefonso Suerte
(Last part; first part printed last Sunday; second part, yesterday)
The allegation that Judge Suerte failed to act on 170 cases over a considerable period of time is incorrect and baseless. If only the audit team headed by Supreme Court deputy administrator Christopher Lock examined the records of the cases objectively, and gave our client a reasonable time to explain the status of each case, it would not have made such a haphazard, sweeping and baseless conclusion.
Most of the cases encountered delays due to the unavailability of he public prosecutor, a matter that is of public knowledge. Some cases are actually no longer in the inventory of cases in RTC, Barili at the time of audit, so our client was wondering why they were included by the audit team.
Some cases had already been resolved by Judge Suerte at the time of the audit, but still they were included in the 170.
Delay
Some cases could not proceed due to the fact that the accused are still at large. In short, the perceived delay of such cases actually does not exist and, if ever there is, it is beyond the control of the presiding judge.
While our client has been criticized for alleged delays, he was also lambasted for resolving expeditiously other cases, particularly annulment cases.
Be that as it may, we have to inform the public that there is no law or rule that prescribes a particular period within which a case for declaration of nullity of void marriages or annulment of voidable marriages may be resolved by the court, or that prohibits a judge from resolving the case within a short period. Of course, this goes without saying that the procedural requirements have to be complied with, i.e., service of summons, filing of answer, report by the public prosecutor that there is no collusion between the parties, pre-trial conference, etc.
Unopposed
The annulment cases referred to by the audit team as allegedly resolved expeditiously are actually unopposed petitions, meaning the respondent spouse, for whatever reason, chose not to file an answer to the petition. In unopposed cases, one can expect that their resolution would be more expeditious than those in which the respondent or defendant has filed an answer or opposition.
Just like the baseless innuendo regarding the “unusual” number of annulment cases in Barili, the audit team headed made another unfair insinuation that our client showed “extraordinary fervor” in deciding the annulment case of Acting Talisay City Prosecutor Mary Ann Castro, describing the 67-day period of resolution as “record time”. It would have been fair had the report elaborated on what it meant by “extraordinary fervor”, by, perhaps, citing facts that would support the malicious imputation.
The audit team should have presented a survey on all family courts in the country to support its allegation that the resolution of the case was the shortest. Without this comparative survey, it was unfair to insinuate that our client acted inappropriately in so resolving with efficiency these unopposed petitions.
Devinadera
On the conviction of Cedrick Devinadera, such was a result of his plea of guilt which, under the Rules of Court, is proper as long as the offended party and the prosecutor gave their consent. In this particular case, the offended party and the prosecutor consented. Judge Suerte simply discharged his judicial function in accordance with the Rules which, under the circumstances, gave him no discretion other than to convict the accused and render the appropriate sentence.
What he did may not be popular to some sectors, but Judge Suerte is not dictated by a desire to be popular. As a judge, he is guided by the Rules of Court and the evidence presented, including judicial admissions of the parties.
Grecar Nilles’ reply
For several days, this reporter tried to get the side of Regional Trial Court Judge Ildefonso Suerte at his residence.
But I was told that the judge was in Badian, Cebu and can only be reached through a mobile phone. When I called his mobile unit, it was out of reach.
I also tried to get the judge’s comment on the disbarment complaint filed before the Supreme Court against him and five others.
I believe I exerted reasonable to get the side of Judge Suerte, but it was the judge who could not be reached for comment.
(Grecar Nilles wrote the report cited by lawyer Rentuza.)
(December 8, 2004 issue)
Write letter to the editor.Click here.
Join the Sun.Star message board.Click here. |
|
[return to top]
[home]
[network page]
|
LOCAL NEWS
BUSINESS
OPINION
SPORTS
LIFESTYLE
FEATURE
SUPERBALITA
WEEKEND
|
