11.

Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Judge Baluma

A.M. No. RTJ-13-2355 September 2, 2013

Doctrine:

The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and
expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. 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.

Facts:

Judge Baluma availed himself of optional retirement on July 22, 2011. In support of his
application for Retirement/Gratuity Benefits under Republic Act No. 910, he requested for a
Certificate of Clearance before the RTC, Branch 1, Tagbilaran City, Bohol. According to the
Certification of the Officer-in-Charge, there were 23 cases submitted for decision/resolution
which were left undecided by Judge Baluma. All 23 cases were already beyond the reglementary
period for deciding them by the time Judge Baluma retired.

In a letter, Judge Baluma’s son, Atty. Cristifil D. Baluma, averred that his father was suffering
from depression and requested for the early release of Judge Baluma’s retirement pay and other
benefits. Atty. Baluma appealed that if any amount needs to be withheld from Judge Baluma’s
retirement benefits due to the undecided cases, Judge Baluma’s health condition be taken into
consideration.

In view of the foregoing, the OCA recommended that Judge Baluma be fined in the total amount
of ₱46,000.00 for gross inefficiency, the amount to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Issue:

Whether Judge Baluma’s gross inefficiency merits the imposition of administrative sanctions.

Ruling: Yes.

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. In addition, this
Court laid down guidelines in SC Administrative Circular No. 13 which provides that "judges shall
observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15, of the Constitution for the
adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or
matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from date of submission by all lower
collegiate courts while all other lower courts are given a period of three months to do so."

At the same time, however, the Court is also aware of the heavy case load of trial courts. The
Court has allowed reasonable extensions of time needed to decide cases, but such extensions
must first be requested from the Court. A judge cannot by himself choose to prolong the period
for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law.

In the present case, Judge Baluma failed to decide 23 cases already submitted for
decision/resolution within the mandatory reglementary period for doing so; he left said cases still
undecided upon his retirement on July 22, 2011; he did not give any reason/explanation for his
failure to comply with the reglementary period for deciding cases; and there were no previous
requests by him for extension of time to decide said cases; but considering as well that he is
suffering from depression and that he has no prior infraction, the Court finds that a fine of
₱20,000.00 is adequate.

JUDICIARY
 12. People vs. Wahiman
G.R. No. 200942 June 16, 2015

Doctrine:

Under Section 5 (2) (e), the Supreme Court shall review, revise, modify, or affirm on appeal or
certiorari, as the law or the Rules of Court may provide, final judgments and orders of lower
courts in all criminal cases in which the penalty imposed is reclusion perpetua or higher.

Facts:

Appellant Jorie Wahiman y Rayos (appellant) was charged with the crime of murder for the death
of Jose Buensuceso (Buensuceso). During his arraignment, appellant pleaded not guilty. Trial on
the merits ensued. During trial, the prosecution submitted in evidence the extrajudicial confession
of appellant taken during the preliminary investigation of the case, admitting to the killing of
Buensuceso.

On February 16, 2009, the RTC rendered its Decision finding appellant guilty beyond reasonable
doubt of the crime of murder and imposes upon him the penalty of Reclusion Perpetua and
directing him to pay the heirs of the victim the sum of ₱75,000.00 as moral damages, ₱75,000.00
as civil indemnity and actual damages as follows: ₱59,280,000.00 lost earning capacity of the
deceased; ₱25,000.00 actual damages; ₱1,500.00 appearance fee; and ₱50,000.00 attorney’s
fee. The CA affirmed the ruling of the trial court.

Issue:

Whether the lower courts’ award of damages amounting to ₱59,280,000.00 for lost earning
capacity of the deceased is excessive.

Ruling: Yes.

Regarding the award for lost earnings, the general rule is that there must be documentary proof
to support indemnity for loss of earning capacity. Admittedly, there are exceptions to this rule,
viz.:

By way of exception, damages for loss of earning capacity may be awarded despite the absence
of documentary evidence when (1) the deceased is self-employed earning less than the
minimum wage under current labor laws, and judicial notice may be taken of the fact that in the
deceased’s line of work no documentary evidence is available; or (2) the deceased is employed
as a daily wage worker earning less than the minimum wage under current labor laws.

Notably, this case does not fall under any of the exceptions. The deceased victim could not be
considered as a self-employed earning less than the minimum wage; neither could he be
considered employed as a daily wage worker. However, we are inclined to award lost earnings
considering that the deceased, as testified by his widow, was the manager of Stanfilco-Dole,
Phils. in Malaybalay City and was receiving a monthly salary of ₱95,000.00. He was 54 years of
age when gunned down by appellant. This testimony was not objected to by appellant or
questioned during cross-examination or on appeal. Clearly, the existence of factual basis of the
award has been satisfactorily established. However, the amount of the award for lost earnings
must be modified following the formula [2/3 x 80 – age] x [gross annual income - necessary
expenses equivalent to 50% of the gross annual income]. Thus: [2/3 x (80-54)] [(₱95,000 x 12) –
50% (₱95,000 x 12)] = ₱9,878,100.00.

JUDICIARY