8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

CASES REPORTED
SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED
 
____________________

A.M. No. RTJ-09-2188. January 10, 2011.*

(Formerly A.M. OCA-I.P.I. No. 08-2995-RTJ)

PROSECUTOR HILARIO RONSON H. TILAN, complainant,  vs.  JUDGE ESTER PISCOSO-

FLOR, RTC, BRANCH 34, BANAUE, IFUGAO, respondent.

Judges; Speedy Disposition of Cases; The Court may grant extension of time to file memoranda, but the
ninety (90) day period for deciding the case shall not be interrupted thereby.—We find the OCA evaluation in
order. Although Judge Piscoso-Flor claimed that she had requested for an extension of time to decide
Criminal Case No. 127, there was no showing that the request was ever granted. Over and above this
consideration, she allowed the parties to control the period of disposition of the case through their lukewarm
response to her call for the submission of memoranda, which she had to do twice.

_______________

* THIRD DIVISION.

2 SUPREME COURT REPORTS

ANNOTATED

Tilan vs. Piscoso-Flor

She could have acted more firmly, considering, as she said, that she only inherited the case, which
implies that it had been on the docket for quite some time. In any event, Judge Piscoso-Flor should have
known that “[t]he Court may grant extension of time to file memoranda, but the ninety (90) day period for
deciding the case shall not be interrupted thereby.”
Same; Same; Gross Inefficiency; Judges are required to decide cases and resolve motions with dispatch
within the reglementary period, and failure to comply constitutes gross inefficiency.—It cannot be over
emphasized that judges need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously. Delay in the disposition of cases, it
must again be stated, is a major cause in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the justice system. For
this fundamental and compelling reason, judges are required to decide cases and resolve motions with
dispatch within the reglementary period. Failure to comply constitutes gross inefficiency, a lapse that
warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions against the erring magistrate.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Gross Inefficiency, Gross Negligence and
Dishonesty.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

BRION, J.:
We resolve in this Decision the Administrative Matter against Judge Ester Piscoso-Flor of the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, Banaue, Ifugao.

The Antecedents

The case arose from the verified complaint, dated September 1, 2008,1  filed by Public
Prosecutor Hilario Ronson H. Tilan, charging Judge Piscoso-Flor with gross inefficiency, gross
negligence and dishonesty.
The records show that the prosecutor was then handling Criminal Case No. 127, People of the
Philippines v. Juanito

_______________

1 Rollo, pp. 2-3.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017438b8102a06352ad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/5
8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 3

Tilan vs. Piscoso-Flor

Baguilat, for Falsification of Public Document,  and Criminal Case No. 140,  People of the
Philippines v. Wihlis Talanay, for Violation of RA 7610, pending promulgation before Judge
Piscoso-Flor. He was also handling Criminal Case No. 221, People of the Philippines v. Macario
Tenefrancia, for Libel, pending arraignment in the same court.
In People v. Baguilat, Judge Piscoso-Flor issued an order dated October 20, 20072 directing the
parties to submit their respective memoranda within thirty (30) days from receipt of the order.
The complainant alleged that the judge failed to render a decision within the ninety (90)-day
reglementary period; instead, she issued an order, dated April 8, 2008,3  reiterating her earlier
directive for the parties to submit their respective memoranda.
In People v. Talanay, Judge Piscoso-Flor issued an order dated September 25, 20074 giving the
accused fifteen (15) days to file his formal offer of evidence, and five (5) days for the prosecution
to file its comment/objections. Allegedly, Judge Piscoso-Flor again failed to resolve the case
within the 90-day reglementary period; instead, she issued another order dated May 21,
20085 giving the parties fifteen (15) days within which to file their memoranda.
Prosecutor Tilan claimed that in both cases, Judge Piscoso-Flor resorted to the issuance of an
order requiring the submission of the parties’ memoranda to circumvent the statutory period for
the resolution of cases. Prosecutor Tilan pointed out that the father of the victim (a minor)
in  People v. Talanay  sought the assistance of the Commission on Human Rights (CHR)
“regarding the slow process of resolving the case,”6 and the CHR even called his attention on the
matter.7

_______________

2 Id., at p. 5; Complaint, Annex “A”.

3 Id., at p. 6; Complaint, Annex “B”.
4 Id., at p. 7; Complaint, Annex “C”.
5 Id., at p. 8; Complaint, Annex “D”.
6 Id., at p. 11.

4 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tilan vs. Piscoso-Flor

    In  People v. Tenefrancia, Prosecutor Tilan alleged that the accused filed a Petition for
Suspension of Trial, prompting Judge Piscoso-Flor to call a hearing on the petition. Despite the
parties’ submission of the matter for resolution, Judge Piscoso-Flor failed to resolve the petition
within the required period.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)8  required Judge Piscoso-Flor to submit her
comment, and she complied on November 7, 2008.9 She offered the following explanation: in the
court’s monthly report for January 2008,10  Criminal Case No. 127,  People v. Baguilat, was
submitted for decision on January 31, 2008, and was due for decision on May 1, 2008; the reason
for this was the parties’ failure to submit their memoranda as required in her order dated
October 20, 2007; on April 8, 2008, she issued another order reiterating her directive for the
parties to file their memoranda because the case had been heard previously by her two
predecessors.
Judge Piscoso-Flor further explained that on April 28, 2008, accused Baguilat moved for
extension of time to submit his memorandum.11  She herself requested for an extension of time to
decide the case up to July 2, 2008.12  She promulgated the decision on September 29, 2008,13 
after several postponements due to the absence of Prosecutor Tilan, the counsel for the accused,
and of the accused himself.
In conclusion, she stated that Prosecutor Tilan filed the present complaint after she personally
went to Justice Secretary Raul M. Gonzales to complain about the former’s actua-

_______________

7 Id., at p. 10.
8   Id., at p. 16; 1st Indorsement, September 29, 2008.
9   Id., at pp. 17-18.
10  Id., at pp. 19-20; Comment, Annex “A”.
11  Id., at pp. 21-22; Comment, Annex “B”.
12  Id., at pp. 23-24; Comment, Annex “C” & “D”.
13  Id., at pp. 25-33; Comment, Annex “E”.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017438b8102a06352ad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/5
8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 5

Tilan vs. Piscoso-Flor

tions towards her,14  and after she cited him for direct contempt.15
On November 19, 2008, Prosecutor Tilan filed a reply,16  reiterating the allegations in his
complaint, and adding that he filed a Motion for Inhibition of Judge Piscoso-Flor in Criminal
Case No. 228,  People of the Philippines v. Eddie Immongor and Senando Bannog,” which was
deemed submitted for resolution on July 18, 2008.
In a rejoinder dated November 25, 2008,17  Judge Piscoso-Flor explained that in Criminal Case
No. 142,  People of the Philippines v. Myleen Dimpatan, for  Estafa, which Prosecutor Tilan
mentioned in his reply, she received the accused’s memorandum on April 20, 2007, and that of
the prosecution on April 17, 2007. She added that on July 24, 2007, the court received a joint
manifestation by Prosecutor Tilan, Private Prosecutor Rufino Lamase, and the accused’s counsel
(Atty. Gerald Tabayan) asking that the promulgation of the decision be deferred pending a
possible settlement of the case. It was only on October 8, 2008 that Prosecutor Lamase moved to
have the case resolved for failure of the accused to settle the civil aspect of the case. She
immediately finalized the decision and scheduled its promulgation on November 14, 2008, but
this was reset to November 24, 2008 upon motion of the counsel for the accused.
Judge Piscoso-Flor further explained that the motion for inhibition in Criminal Case No. 228
had been the subject of a contempt case which reached the Court of Appeals and gave rise to
numerous complaints filed by Prosecutor Tilan against her. One of the cases had been considered
closed and termi-

_______________

14  Id., at p. 38; Comment, Annex “I”.

15  Id., at p. 40; Comment, Annex “K”.
16  Id., at p. 42.
17  Id., at p. 63.

6 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tilan vs. Piscoso-Flor

nated by Deputy Court Administrator Reuben P. de la Cruz in a letter dated November 4, 2008.18
Upon recommendation of the OCA, the Court issued a Resolution on July 6, 2009:19  (1) re-
docketing the case as a regular administrative matter; (2) directing Judge Piscoso-Flor to conduct
an inventory of cases pending in her court and find out whether there were cases submitted for
decision that had not been decided within the required period, and to decide these cases within
thirty (30) days; and (3) requiring the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the
case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings and the records.
Judge Piscoso-Flor and Prosecutor Tilan submitted the case for resolution on August 27, 2009
and October 8, 2009, respectively.

The Court’s Ruling

In his Memorandum dated March 19, 2009,20  Court Administrator Jose P. Perez (now a
member of the Court) found Judge Piscoso-Flor to have been remiss in her duty to decide cases
within the period required by law. He recommended that the judge be merely admonished
considering that this is her first infraction and that she inherited most of the cases that gave rise
to the complaint. At the same time, he recommended that a stern warning be given against the
commission of a similar offense in the future.
The OCA evaluation tells us that Judge Piscoso-Flor is guilty of failing to decide cases within
the required periods, citing Criminal Case No. 127 (People v. Juanito Baguilat) as the principal
basis of its conclusion. In this case, the OCA faulted Judge Piscoso-Flor for using as justification
for her

_______________

18  Id., at p. 66; Rejoinder, Annex “C”.

19  Id., at p. 7.
20  Id., at pp. 67-71.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017438b8102a06352ad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/5
8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 7

Tilan vs. Piscoso-Flor

inaction the parties’ failure to submit their respective memoranda. The OCA opined that this is
not a valid reason for not deciding the case; if she believed she would not be able to decide the
case on time, she could have asked the Court for an extension of the required period. The OCA
acknowledged though that Judge Piscoso-Flor requested for an extension to decide the case in her
monthly report of cases and certificate of service.21
We find the OCA evaluation in order. Although Judge Piscoso-Flor claimed that she had
requested for an extension of time to decide Criminal Case No. 127, there was no showing that
the request was ever granted. Over and above this consideration, she allowed the parties to
control the period of disposition of the case through their lukewarm response to her call for the
submission of memoranda, which she had to do twice. She could have acted more firmly,
considering, as she said, that she only inherited the case, which implies that it had been on the
docket for quite some time. In any event, Judge Piscoso-Flor should have known that “[t]he Court
may grant extension of time to file memoranda, but the ninety (90) day period for deciding the
case shall not be interrupted thereby.”22
The same is true with Criminal Case No. 140 (People v. Talanay). As early as March 6, 2006,23 
the CHR Office in the Cordillera Administrative Region relayed to Judge Piscoso-Flor the concern
of the parent of the victim of the child abuse regarding the delay in the resolution of the case. It
was only on May 21, 2008 when Judge Piscoso-Flor called for the submission of memoranda.
Judge Piscoso-Flor had no comment on Criminal Case No. 221 (People v. Tenefrancia). On the
other hand, the Motion for Inhibition in Criminal Case No. 228, filed by Prosecutor Ti-

_______________

21  Supra note 12.
22  Administrative Circular No. 28, July 3, 1989.
23  Supra note 6.

8 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Tilan vs. Piscoso-Flor

lan, was deemed submitted for resolution on July 18, 2008,24  but Judge Piscoso-Flor herself
admitted that she resolved the motion on November 10, 2008 or beyond the required 90-day
period.
Judge Piscoso-Flor, however, cannot be held liable for delay in the disposition of Criminal Case
No. 142 (People v. Dimpatan), which Prosecutor Tilan cited in his reply.25  While he claimed that
the case was deemed submitted for decision on March 12, 2007, it appears from the records that
he, Private Prosecutor Rufino Lamase, and the accused’s counsel (Atty. Gerald Tabayan)
executed a joint manifestation26  praying that the promulgation of the decision be deferred
pending negotiations among them on the civil aspect of the case. When the negotiations bogged
down and upon motion of Prosecutor Lamase (dated October 8, 2008),27  Judge Piscoso-Flor
promulgated the decision on November 24, 2008.
On the whole, we find Judge Piscoso-Flor guilty of undue delay in the disposition of cases.
Except for  People v. Dimpatan, Judge Piscoso-Flor failed to resolve the other cases within the
required period, in violation of the law and the rules. No less than the Constitution sets the limits
on this all-important aspect in the administration of justice. It mandates that lower courts have
three (3) months or ninety (90) days within which to decide cases or matters submitted to them
for resolution.28  Also, the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of the Court’s
business promptly and decide cases within the prescribed period.29
It cannot be over emphasized that judges need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously.
Delay in the disposition of

_______________

24  Supra note 16.
25  Rollo, p. 42.
26  Id., at p. 64; Rejoinder, Annex “A”.
27  Id., at p. 65; Rejoinder, Annex “B”.
28  CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Section 15(1).

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017438b8102a06352ad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 4/5
8/29/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

29  Rule 3.05.

VOL. 639, JANUARY 10, 2011 9

Tilan vs. Piscoso-Flor

cases, it must again be stated, is a major cause in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the
justice system.30  For this fundamental and compelling reason, judges are required to decide
cases and resolve motions with dispatch within the reglementary period. Failure to comply
constitutes gross inefficiency, a lapse that warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions
against the erring magistrate.31 
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court defines undue delay in rendering a decision or order
as a less serious charge, punishable under Section 11(b) of the same Rule and imposes a penalty
of suspension from office, without salary and other benefits, for not less than one (1) nor more
than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. In light,
however, of the fact that this is Judge Piscoso-Flor’s first infraction and considering that most of
the cases involved were inherited cases, we deem a fine in its minimum range an appropriate
penalty for Judge Piscoso-Flor.
WHEREFORE, premises considered, Judge Ester Piscoso-Flor is declared liable for delay in
the disposition of cases. Accordingly, she is FINED P10,000.00, with a stern warning against the
commission of a similar offense in the future.
SO ORDERED.

Carpio-Morales (Chairperson), Bersamin, Villarama, Jr. and Sereno, JJ., concur.

Judge Ester Piscoso-Flor meted with P10,000 fine for delay in the disposition of cases, with
stern warning against repetition of similar offense. 

_______________

30  Michael G. Plata v. Judge Lizabeth G. Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-08-172, October 24, 2008, 570 SCRA 14.
31  Sanchez v. Vestil, A.M. No. RTJ-98-1419, October 13, 1998, 298 SCRA 1.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017438b8102a06352ad3003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/5