Sunday, November 09, 2008 Delayed action to cost judge P30T fine: SC
AFTER getting fined P40,000 for acting on a few hundred motions related to cases not raffled to his sala, the Supreme Court (SC) has penalized retired Judge Ireneo Lee Gako Jr. anew.
This time, it’s for failing to act swiftly on a motion.
In an en banc decision penned by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro, Gako was found guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision and was fined P30,000, to be deducted from his withheld retirement benefits.
“His (Gako’s) claim that the motion was not filed by the proper party is not a valid excuse to simply ignore said motion. Instead, he should have accordingly formally disposed of such motion,” the High Court ruled.
The infraction was further compounded by Gako’s supposed failure to comply with an order directing him to submit his comment, while the complaint was still being investigated by the Office of the Court Administrator.
The High Tribunal rejected Gako’s explanation that he had suffered a mild stroke, which was why he failed to immediately comply with the order to comment.
“While he may have been suffering from some ailment, he failed to show that it totally incapacitated him from complying with the lawful orders of the OCA,” the ruling read.
Lawyer Manuel Nollo-ra, Gako’s clerk of court when he was still presiding over the 5th branch of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cebu City, was also fined the equivalent of a month’s salary and given a reprimand.
Nollora was also impleaded in the previous SC administrative investigation against Gako on the motions pertaining to cases not raffled to his sala. He was reprimanded.
This latest case stemmed from a complaint filed by Cebuano lawyer Raul Sesbreño late in 2005. The lawyer accused Gako of violating judicial canons and the Code of Judicial Conduct for the delay in resolving a motion for reconsideration that the lawyer filed.
The motion was in relation to a special proceeding. There, the judge also allegedly acted on a certain motion five months after he inhibited himself from the case.
On Jan. 19, 2006, then court administrator Presbitero Velasco directed the judge to comment on the charge within five days. There was no reply.
When Velasco wrote the judge again, on March 30, 2006, still there was no reply.
Only when Velasco caused the issuance of a show-cause order, with a warning that continued refusal would warrant a separate administrative complaint, did Judge Gako write back.
In his March 15, 2007 letter, Gako informed Velasco that he had retired from the service on Sept. 20, 2006 and,while working on his retirement papers, suffered a mild stroke and had to stay at home.
On Sesbreño’s complaint, Gako explained that the motion Sesbreño accused him of not acting on in time was his motion for reconsideration of a previous order. That order denied lawyer Virginia Lim Sesbreño’s claim for attorney’s fees from the estate of Vito Borromeo.
He said he did not act on it, believing that Raul Sesbreño was not the proper person to file the pleading.
And on the charge that he acted on a case even after inhibiting from it, the judge said he merely exercised his discretion to disregard his previous order of inhibition.
The High Court, however, found the explanation insufficient.
“His claim that the motion was not filed by the proper party is not a valid excuse to simply ignore said motion. Instead, he should have accordingly formally disposed of such motion,” the ruling read.
“All told, the unreasonable delay of the respondent judge in resolving the motion submitted for his resolution clearly constituted a violation of complainant’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case,” it added. (KNR)
