AM No.

18-11-09-SC 22 January, 2019

RE: COMPLAINT-AFFIDAVIT OF ELVIRA N. ENABLES, REBECCA H. ANGELES, AND ESTELITA B.
OCAMPO AGAINST FORMER CHIEF JUSTICE TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO (Ret.), RELATIVE
TO GR Nos. 203063 AND 204743

FACTS:
This administrative matter originated from a complaint-affidavit charging the former Chief Justice Teresita
Leonardo-De Castro of gross ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency, gross misconduct, gross dishonesty, and
conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
The complaint-affidavit states that in September, 2012, Mallari spouses filed for petition for mandamus and
prohibition with prayer for temporary restraining order docketed as GR No. 203063 against the Court of Appeals
First Division and the Court of Appeals Special Former Fourth Division of Five. This was subsequently followed by
filing of petition for review on certiorari docketed as GR No. 204743 against the Philippine National Bank and
Court of Appeals Special Former Fourth Division of Five. Both cases were assigned to this Court’s First Division
and was raffled to the former Chief Justice.
The case lapsed more than 5 years where no decision was made for both petitions of the spouses,
contending that it violated the spouses’ constitutional right to speedy disposition of their cases, as well as accusing
that the respondent former Chief Justice committed graft and corruption for giving the PNB unwarranted benefits
through manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence causing undue injury to the Mallari
spouses.

ISSUE:
Whether the respondent former Chief Justice be held administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law,
gross inefficiency, gross misconduct, gross dishonesty, and conduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.

RULE:
No.

ANALYSIS:
Article VIII Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution provides that all cases or matters filed to the court must be
decided or resolved within 24 months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, …
As reviewed in different precedent cases, constitutional provisions are to be construed as mandatory, unless
by express provision or by necessary implication, a different intention is manifest. The difference between a
mandatory and a director provision is often determined on grounds of expediency, the reason being that less injury
results to the general public by disregarding then by enforcing the letter of the law. Being the court of last resort, the
Supreme Court should be given an ample amount of time to deliberate cases pending before it. A leeway must be
given to the magistrates for them to thoroughly review and reflect the cases assigned to them to not result to the
height of injustice if cases were hastily decided on at the risk of erroneously dispensing justice.

CONCLUSION:
It was decided that the respondent’s failure to resolve the spouses petitions is not one that constitute gross
ignorance of the law warranting administrative liability, thereby dismissing this administrative case as there is no
showing of a prima facie case against the respondent.