A.M. No.

90-474 October 4, 1991

CLEMENCIO C. SABITSANA, JR., complainant, vs.

JUDGE ADRIANO R. VILLAMOR, RTC, BRANCH 16, NAVAL, LEYTE, respondent.

Facts:

Atty. Sabitsana charged Judge Villamor with falsification of his monthly Certificates of
Service by making it appear that he had resolved all cases submitted for decision within
the required 90-day period under Judiciary Act of 1948, Sec. 5. The truth is he had 15
undecided cases from 5 years back (starting March 1985). Deputy Court Administrator
Bernad audited Villamor’s cases, and reported that there were 87 undecided cases
beyond the 90-day period, including 6 criminal cases with prisoners, 36 criminal cases
without prisoners, and 45 civil cases. Worse, 2 criminal cases and 12 civil cases were
missing. Complainant also noted 7 additional cases that were still unresolved by
Villamor.

Commenting, Villamor claimed that the complaint was for harassment and vengeance.
He claimed he had not violated the 90-day period, but did not deny that there were other
cases he had not decided yet within 90 days because the transcripts were incomplete.
He also added that he knew nothing of the preparation of his monthly reports which
appeared decided within 90 days when in fact they were not; and that he only signed it.
Among others, the Court ordered Villamor to decided unresolved cases beyond the 90-
day period, and to inform the Court about his steps in retrieving lost records. Villamor
has been unheard from from on those directives. Sabitsana followed up with another
complaint, stating that the 7 mentioned cases he earlier mentioned remained
undecided. The Court validated the complainant’s charge that Villamor failed to decide
the cases within the required period, and that he falsified his Certificates of Service.
Villamor shifted the blame on his Clerk of Court Atty. Jocobo, whom he claimed was
inefficient in managing Court records. 

Issue/s:

1. Whether or not respondent Judge Villamor violated the Code of Judicial

Conduct?

2. Whether or not respondent Judge Villamor was guilty of giving undue interest in a
pending criminal case?

Ruling:
1. Yes. He violated Rule 3.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. As held in Secretary of
Justice v Legaspi, the judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision,
particularly those pending for more than 90 days. He should keep his own record of
cases submitted for decision so that he could act on them promptly. He should also be
diligent and vigilant in preparing his monthly certificates of service by verifying often
whether there are pending cases for decision for more than 90 days, because he could
 be held accountable for any error or falsification in his certificates. He cannot escape
liability for falsification of his certificates of service with the excuse that he has no
knowledge of those cases pending decision for more than 90 days. Nor could he blame
his subordinate court employees for failing to remind him of his deadlines—court
employees are not the guardian of a judge’s responsibilities.
2. Yes, for doing such, respondent violated Canon 1 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct,
specifically, Sec. 3 thereof: Judges shall refrain from influencing in any manner the
outcome of litigation or dispute pending before another court or administrative agency.

In this case, respondent designated Judge Pitao as Acting Judge of the MCTC of Biliran
Cabucgayon, Leyte, which was vacant, to allocate 2 session days a week in his
additional sala. Judge Pitao in his residence received a note from a woman, who was
the wife of the accused in the criminal case pending trial for a long time. The note
requested that the case be heard and decided, and if the court had no jurisdiction, to
remand it to RTC. It also spoke of Big Man Egane. Respondent asked Pitao whether he
received the note, and warned Pitao about Big Man Egane, who was backing the
complainant in the case and that Pitao should acquit the accused. Pitao, however,
convicted the accused of theft because the evidence was strong. Irked, respondent
Villamor directed Pitao to forward the records to his court, elevated the records of the
case to RTC over which respondent presides, and designated Judge de la Pena as
Acting Judge of the MCTC Biliran-Cabucgayon, Leyte replacing Pitao; and acquitted the
accused in the criminal case. It was found in the investigation that respondent had sent
the handwritten note through the wife of the accused to Pitao. This act of sending his
note to Pitao showed failure to exercise due care, and had an appearance of
impropriety. His remark to Pitao of acquitting the accused was also improper and
created an impression that he was for the exoneration of the accused. It tended to
influence the trial judge who was going to decide the case, running afoul of the principle
that judges are to promote justice by administering it impartially.