Candido Bulan, complaining witness in the case of People vs. Nemesio Palmea for Serious Physical Injuries before the Municipal Court of Rizal, Cagayan (Crim. Case No. 78), has charged respondent Judge of the Municipal Court of Tuao, Cagayan, with undue delay in the trial of the said criminal case.

In a letter dated 2 November 1972, addressed to the Secretary of Justice, complainant had alleged that on 26 September 1962, he filed a criminal case for Serious Physical Injuries against Nemesio Palmea before the Municipal Court of Rizal; that because the then incumbent Municipal Judge inhibited himself from trying the case due to his relationship to the accused, respondent Judge Cardenas was designated to hear the case on the merits, but that the latter failed to do so for almost ten (10) years despite complainant's repeated requests to set the case for trial.

The records sufficiently establish that the disposition of Criminal Case No. 78 for Serious Physical Injuries filed on 26 September 1962, had, in fact, dragged on for more than ten years.

In his Affidavit dated 30 January 1973, respondent Judge explained in part:

"x       x          x         x          x          x

"(4) That every time this Criminal Case No. 78 was set for hearing, Candido Bulan by himself or accompanied by Mayor Francisco Mamba always approached me in my residence at Tuao, Cagayan, to ask and/or plead for postponement of the hearing, informing me that his lawyer did not arrive yet;

"(5)  Likewise, the accused himself on several occasions asked and/or pleaded, too, for postponements on the same reason that he did not have a Counsel;

"(6)  That whenever I set Criminal Case No. 78 for hearing I became help­less in the face of the repeated request of the then Mayor Francisco Mamba to postpone the case because he needed Candido Bulan at his gasoline filling station at all times;

"(7)  That he, Mayor Mamba, even imposed upon me to postpone the hearing of the case for an indefinite period of time, and that during his incumbency he was one among the most powerful mayors of Cagayan such that such impositions were dangerous to resist;

"(8)  That the same Candido Bulan who is the Accused in Criminal Case No. 142, entitled 'People of the Philippines vs. Candido Bulan, for Multiple Murder' filed on July 3, 1970, before the Muni­cipal Court of Rizal, Cagayan, could no longer be found in Tuao, Cagayan nor in Rizal, Cagayan, as the warrant for his arrest was never returned to the Municipal Court of Rizal, Cagayan;

"(9) That as such Candido Bulan remains at large thus further prolonging the delay in the proceedings;

"(10) That I could have even dismissed the said Criminal Case No. 78 due to lack of interest on the part of the complaining witness, for his repeated and unnecessary postponements and dis­appearance had it not been for an administrative complaint filed against me for dismissing a criminal case in the Municipal Court of Faire, Cagayan, wherein I was reprimanded by the Secretary of Justice thru the Presiding Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, Third Branch, Tuao, Cagayan, against such dismissal;

"x x x x x x x x x x x x"^[1]

Referred for investigation to Judge Jesus B. Ruiz, then Judge of the Court of First Instance of Cagayan, his report was that respondent Judge could not be blamed for inaction or negli­gence for the following reasons:  (a) Judge Cardenas set the hearing of the criminal case five times but hearings were post­poned upon complainant's request except for one which was re­quested by the accused; (b) neither complainant nor the special counsel, who filed the complaint, ever bothered to move that the case be scheduled for hearing; (c) Judge Cardenas could have rightfully dismissed the case but refrained from doing so because of the reprimand he received from the Department of Justice in another case; and (d) it was strange that complainant should complain against the actuations of Judge Cardenas when he (complainant) was also responsible for the delay.

The former Judicial Consultant, Justice Manuel Barcelona, however, in his Memorandum of 21 March, 1975, recommended that Judge Cardenas be separated from the service, thus:

"x x x Clearly, respondent has violated Section 3 of Rule 22 of the Revised Rules of Court, which reads:

"Adjournments and Postponements - A court may adjourn a trial from day to day, and to any stated time, as the expeditious and convenient trans­action of business may require, but shall have no power to adjourn a trial for a longer period than one month for each adjournment, nor more than three months in all, except when authorized in writing by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.

"Respondent's gross ignorance of the law, is aggravated with his admission that he succumbed to the pressure imposed on him by the Mayor of Tuao, Cagayan.  Allow­ances may be given respondent for his failure to observe the said provision as no one is infallible.  But for him to surrender the independence of his office, is an unpardonable act.  This unmitigated actuation of respondent renders him unfit to continue occupying this position of trust.  I recommend that he be separated from the service."^[2]

This Court en banc set the case for hearing on 1 July 1975^[3] but there were no appearances for either the complainant or the respondent.  The case was then submitted for decision.

In postponing the case indefinitely there was a wilful dis­regard or reckless violation of section 3, Rule 22, supra, on the part of respondent Judge constituting a breach or neglect of duty which cannot but subject him to the corresponding administrative action.^[4] That complainant, allegedly, became a fugitive from justice, will not absolve respondent Judge from administrative liability.  Criminal Case No. 78, which is involved in this ad­ministrative complaint, was filed on 26 September 1962, while Criminal Case No. 142, in which complainant Candido Bulan is the accused and has allegedly remained at-large, was filed on 3 July 1970.  Considering the lapse of almost eight (8) years from the filing of the criminal case in question until complainant allegedly became a fugitive from justice, respondent had all the opportunity to take the initiative and positively act on, or rightfully dismiss, the case for lack of interest to prosecute.  Besides, if complain­ant had actually been at large, why would he emerge from hiding and risk arrest by filing this administrative Complaint on 2 November 1972?

Even conceding arguendo that complainant herein was not pre­judiced by the inaction of respondent Judge, it is best to bear in mind the cardinal principle that a crime committed is an offense against the State.  In criminal cases, the intervention of the aggrieved parties is limited to being witnesses for the prosecution.  The prompt disposition of criminal cases remains the paramount objective that should consistently and relentless­ly be pursued.  Postponements for a few months could still be explicable.  But a delay in the trial of a criminal case for eight years, and specially for 10 years, is reprehensible under the truism that justice delayed is justice undermined.

To aggravate matters, respondent Judge allowed himself to be swayed by extraneous considerations and to be dictated to by interested parties to the case particularly by the then incumbent Mayor of Tuao, Cagayan, upon the untenable reason that he was one of the most influential Mayors of that municipality and his "impositions were dangerous to resist." Thereby, he succumbed to pressure from a local politician, allowed his official actuations to be deterred by outside influence, and surrendered the prized independence of his office.  Respondent's reason for not ordering the dismissal of the case for lack of interest to prosecute, which was fear of another administrative complaint against him and a reprimand from the Department of Justice, displayed lack of judicious discernment in the handling of suits pending before him based on facts and circumstances peculiar to each case.  He was solicitous more of possible criticisms and administrative sanctions rather than in pursuing a positive judicial course of action.

We are constrained to find, therefore, that respondent has exhibited traits undesirable for dispensers of justice and is unfit to continue in office.

WHEREFORE, respondent, Teofilo B. Cardenas, is hereby dismissed as Municipal Judge of Tuao, Cagayan.

SO ORDERED.

Fernando, C.J., Teehankee, Barredo, Makasiar, Aquino, Concepcion, Jr., Fernandez, and Guerrero, JJ., concur.
Abad Santos, J., concurs with Justice de Castro.
De Castro, J., see separate opinion.

---

^[1] pp. 6-7, Rollo.

^[2] p. 28, ibid.

^[3] Resolution, Second Division, Rollo, p. 30.

^[4] Barrueco vs. Abeto, 71 Phil. 7 (1940).

tags