RICARDO DELA CRUZ vs 

HERMINIA M. PASCUA,
Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 25, Tagudin,
Ilocos Sur

Dela Cruz filed an election protest against Mayor Jose

Bunoan which presided by respondent Judge Herminia
M. Pascua
Ricardo Dela Cruz filed administrative complaint with the
Office of the Court Administrator against Judge Herminia
M. Pascua alleging that judge committed falsification
when she issued the order deferring the hearing of case
and violation of Section 17 (par. 1), Rule 35 of the Rules of
Procedure of the COMELEC by delaying the disposition of
his election protest.
Respondent Judge admitted her honest and innocuous
error for postponing the hearing but raised her defense
on the ground that the protestant elevated it to the SC,
and despite the dismissal of the appeal to COMELEC, they
never moved for the resumption of the proceedings
which made her believed that it was indeed appealed to
the higher court.
Cout administrator finds that early conclusions of the
election protest involved in this administrative matter was
prevented by the actions of judge.

Her Order canceling the scheduled hearings, sending the

case to the archives because of her perception, unfounded
and erroneous, that a petition for certiorari was pending in
the Supreme Court, certainly resulted in the loss of a
substantial period for the resolution of the election case
which needed urgent attention.

The averment in her comment is that she honestly believed

that there was such a petition pending because she had
been shown by the intervenors a copy of such petition.

Be that as it may, respondent judge was negligent when

she issued the two Orders referred to above. Her reliance
of the word of the intervenors who showed her a copy of
an alleged petition was clearly uncalled for. She should
have waited for a notice from the Supreme Court and in
the absence of any restraining order, she should have tried
the election case with dispatch until its termination.

Election protest are cases which by their nature necessitate

reasonable speed in order that the electorate may discover
what their will truly was. To postpone the consideration of
such cases would result in empty victories, should the
protestant be finally declared the winner. This most
probably resulted in the present case.

Because of the failure of the respondent to take the

necessary precaution to ascertain the fact that a case was
actually pending before the Supreme Court before she
decided to indefinitely postpone the continuation of the
case by sending the same to the archives, she deserves a
certain measure of punishment.

As regards the allegation that respondent had falsified the

Order retrieving the case from the archives, we believe
that respondent has satisfactorily explained her action.
The said In addition, she contends that there was clearly
no ante-dating of orders. Hence, Judge Pascua
compulsory retired.
ISSUE: WON Judge Pascua manifested an unbecoming
conduct, on the basis of her issued orders on the electoral
protest, which is actually contrary to what the Code of
Judicial Conduct.

HELD: By issuing orders indefinitely postponing the

hearing of election protest, the judge manifested
inefficiency in the disposition of an election protest case
and thus overtly transgressed basic mandatory rules for
expeditious resolution of cases.
Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
mandates, among others, that a judge should perform
his official duties with DILIGENCE a judge should
maintain professional competence and decide cases
within the required periods.
This Court has ruled that inefficient judges are
equally impermissible in the judiciary as the incompetent
and dishonest ones.  Any of them tarnishes the image of
the judiciary or brings it to public contempt, dishonor or
disrespect and must then be administratively dealt with
and punished accordingly.
This Court views the conduct of respondent judge
improper and censurable.  She should have  remembered
that she is presumed to be conscious of her duties under
the Code of Judicial Conduct.  Indeed, as a member of the
Bench, she should be the embodiment of competence and
assiduousness in her responsibilities.  Unfortunately,
respondent judge failed to live up to this standard.  By
issuing the orders in question, she evidently manifested
inefficiency and overtly transgressed basic mandatory
rules adopted to assure the expeditious resolution of cases.
WHEREFORE, Judge Herminia M. Pascua is found guilty of
inefficiency and is fined in the amount of P10,000.00, the
same to be deducted from her retirement benefits.