A.M No.

RTJ-06-1976 April 29, 2009 By Resolution of September 23, 2003,6 this Court acting on the
[Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1857] recommendations of Justice Velasco in his September 8, 2003
Memorandum7 to the Chief Justice, required Judge Navidad to comment
PROVINCIAL PROSECUTOR MANUEL F. on the complaint and directed the Court Management Office of the Office
TORREVILLAS, Complainant, of the Court Administrator (OCA) to: (1) conduct a judicial audit on "all
vs. undecided criminal cases, which include cases that are pending,
JUDGE ROBERTO A. NAVIDAD,1 REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, submitted for decision, archived, etc. for the purpose of determining any
BRANCH 32, CALBAYOG CITY, Respondent. inappropriate actuation with respect to the issuance of court orders
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x especially on matters pertaining to the grant of bail in non-bailable
offenses"; and (2) coordinate with Trial Prosecutor Cicero T. Lampasa as
A.M No. RTJ-06-1977 April 29, 2009 regards the other cases that needed to be investigated.
[Formerly A.M. No. 04-2-110-RTC]
By Resolution of March 8, 2006, the Court referred the complaint to
REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL Justice Isaias P. Dicdican of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 32, CALBAYOG CITY. and recommendation.
DECISION Covered by A.M. No. RTJ-06-1976 are: (1) Criminal Case No. 4037,
CARPIO MORALES, J.: "People of the Philippines v. Nestor Sandongan," for murder; (2) Criminal
Cases No. 4023 and 4024, both entitled "People of the Philippines v.
These two administrative cases at bar, A.M. No. RTJ-06-1976 and A.M.
Simproso Paghunasan," for frustrated murder and murder, respectively;
No. RTJ-06-1977, were originally consolidated with two other cases: A.
and (3) Criminal Case No. 4147, "People of the Philippines v. Alfredo L.
M. No. RTJ-06-1978, Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Roberto
Tesoro, et al.," for murder.
A. Navidad, RTC, Br. 32, Calbayog City, Samar, and A.M. No. RTJ-06-
1980, Eric C. Isidoro and Atty. Anecio R. Guades v. Judge Roberto A. Justice Dicdican synthesized the version of complainant in his October
Navidad, RTC, Br. 32, Calbayog City. 25, 2006 Report of Investigation and Recommendation8 as follows:
By Resolution of January 31, 2007,2 this Court dismissed the complaint in Criminal Case No. 4037 – People of the Philippines v. Nestor Sandongan
A.M. No. RTJ-06-1978, while that in A.M. No. RTJ-06-1980 was also In this case, respondent allegedly improperly cited a witness, SPO2
dismissed, Judge Roberto A. Navidad (Judge Navidad or respondent) Rolando Rebortura, in contempt of court for not telling the truth or for
was reminded to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties. violating his oath. Complainant, through (then) Prosecutor Lampasa,
This leaves for disposition the first and second cases. alleged that SPO2 Rebortura was testifying on the matter of whether or
Re: A.M. No. RTJ-06-1976 not he recovered a shotgun from the crime scene. When the said witness
first stated that he did not recover any shotgun, he was reminded by
On July 16, 2003, Provincial Prosecutor Manuel Torrevillas, Jr. brought to
defense counsel, Atty. Sisenando Fiel, that he had already revealed to
the attention of then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. the "inapropriate
him (Atty. Fiel) in a conference earlier held that he had recovered a
actuation" of Judge Roberto A. Navidad of Branch 32, the RTC of
shotgun. After the respondent sought a clarification on the matter, SPO2
Calabayog City in the handling of cases before his sala. The Chief
Rebortura replied to the effect that he might have said that he recovered
Justice thus instructed the Provincial Prosecutor to submit a written report
a shotgun to Atty. Fiel but, because of the lapse of time, he could not
thereon to which he complied by letter-complaint dated August 15,
anymore recall.
2003,3 attaching thereto the reports4 of the trial prosecutor in the sala of
Judge Navidad. The respondent then adjudged SPO2 Rebortura in contempt of court and
allegedly ordered the witness to be detained under the custody of the
By 1st Indorsement dated August 25, 2003,5 the above-said August 15,
Clerk fo Court for two (2) days. This order of detention was not, however,
2003 letter-complaint was referred by the Chief Justice to then Court
stated in the order issued by the respondent.
Administrator and now a member of this Court, Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.,
for comment and recommendation. After that session, SPO2 Rebortura allegedly pleaded with the
respondent that he be not detained.9
Criminal Cases No. 4023 and 4024 - People of the Philippines v. Justice Dicdican summarized respondent’s defense as follows:
Simproso Paghunasan Regarding the alleged irregularities in his handling of Criminal Case No.
In these cases, the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in Calbayog City, 4037, respondent contends that he cited SPO2 Rebortura in direct
on July 1, 2002, a copy of a "Motion to Grant Accused Provisional contempt of court because he found the said witness lying and telling
Liberty" filed by the accused. On July 11, 2002, the prosecution then untruths at the witness chair. Respondent further contends that it was
interposed its Opposition/Comments thereto, not knowing that, on July 2, very evident then that the said witness was the one masterminding the
2002, the respondent had already issued an order granting the accused "manufacture" or filing of trumped-up cases. At the behest of (then)
provisional liberty and approving the bonds filed by the accused. Prosecutor Lampasa, the witness asked for forgiveness and admitted his
Complainant claims that the accused had been charged with the capital wrongdoings and misconduct. Upon a sincere promise by the said
offense of murder which is a non-bailable offense. The respondent witness, the citation for contempt was lifted and he was released from his
granted bail without conducting a hearing and without affording the detention at the office of the Clerk of Court.
prosecution the opportunity to prove the strength of its evidence.10 As for Criminal Cases Nos. 4023 and 4024, respondent denies that the
Criminal Case No. 4147 – People of the Philippines v. Alfredo l. Tesoro, prosecution was not given the opportunity to prove the strength of its
et al. evidence and that the petition for bail was granted without a hearing.

An Information was filed against the accused in June 2002. The accused Respondent claims that an oral petition for bail had been presented in
later on filed, on August 13, 2002, a Motion to Quash Warrant of Arrest open court which was duly heard and partially argued. In fact, the
and For Judicial Determination of Probable Cause. The prosecution filed prosecution had allegedly energetically argued and suggested that the
an opposition to said motion, contending that the accused should first defense reduce its petition into writing so the matter can be brought up to
submit to the jurisdiction of the court before he could ask for any positive the Provincial Prosecutor. The proceedings even revealed that there was
relief. an error on the part of the prosecution in not applying Article 48 of the
Revised Penal Code and the petition for bail was granted only after the
During the scheduled hearing of the case on December 4, 2002, counsel prosecution refused to rectify the error.
for the accused filed a Motion to Recall Warrant of Arrest and for
Accused Alfredo L. Tesoro To Be Allowed To Be Placed Under the Finally, as to Criminal Case No. 4147, respondent said that he quashed
Custody of Counsel Pending Resolution of Motion for Judicial the warrant of arrest for failure of the prosecution to adduce evidence.
Determination of Probable Cause. The prosecution vehemently opposed Furthermore, the preliminary investigation was allegedly improperly
such motion but the respondent recalled the warrant of arrest previously conducted with a "tutored" alleged sole eyewitness.
issued and allowed the accused to be places under the temporary As for the grant of custodial rights to the counsel for accused who were
custody of his counsel. charged with heinous crimes, respondent contends that this grant is
The December 4, 2002 order issued by the respondent was received by given only to the said counsel as officer of the court. Respondent further
the prosecution only on August 7, 2003. Moreover, the recall of the contends that he followed certain parameters before granting such
warrant of arrest was not stated therein. custodial rights.12

On December 10, 2002, the prosecution filed its Comments/ Opposition Justice Dicdican thus came up with the following Evaluation:
to the Motion for Judicial Determination of Probable Cause with Motion to From the totality of the evidence adduced by the parties, the undersigned
Reinstate the Recalled Warrant of Arrest. Since the accused had not filed investigator, after a judicious evaluation and scrutiny thereof, has come
any opposition to the motion to reinstate the recalled arrest warrant, the up with a finding that the respondent had indeed committed irregularities
prosecution filed, on March 11, 2003, a Motion to Submit Incident for and procedural lapses in the handling of the cases pending before his
Resolution. sala.
However, the respondent granted the motion for judicial determination of Anent the charge that he granted the accused bail without a hearing in
probable cause filed by the accused without acting on the motion to Criminal Cases Nos. 4023 and 4034, the record shows that, in reality, no
reinstate recalled warrant of arrest filed by the prosecution.11 hearing had been conducted by the respondent before he issued the
order dated July 2, 2002 granting the accused provisional liberty and Based on his investigation and on the evidence presented in this case,
approving the bonds filed. the undersigned concludes that the respondent did not conduct the
Respondent’s claim that there had been an oral petition for bail which requisite hearing before he granted bail to the accused, in violation of
was extensively heard and argued during the pre-trial of the cases on Sections 8 and 18, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal
June 20, 2002 is not supported by the record .x x x x Procedure...

While the respondent maintains that the stenographer failed to take down xxxx
the discussion on the oral petition for bail, the undersigned finds this It has been held that such error cannot be characterized as mere
unsubstantiated and totally self-serving. The record speaks for itself and deficiency in prudence, discretion and judgment but a patent disregard of
the transcript of the stenographic notes is wholly bereft of any reference well-known rules and, therefore, constitutive of gross ignorance of the
to the oral petition for bail... law. In line with existing jurisprudence, the undersigned recommends that
The motion filed by the accused for the grant of provisional liberty was the respondent be fined P20,000.00 with a stern warning that the
dated June 27, 2002 and was received by the prosecution on July 1, commission of the same or similar offense in the future will be dealt with
2002. On July 2, 2002 the respondent had issued an order granting said more severely.
motion. Similarly, in Criminal Case No. 4147, where accused Alfredo Tesoro is
It was established by the undersigned that the July 2, 2002 order was charged with murder, the respondent judge allowed the said accused to
based on the June 27, 2002 motion filed by the accused. Respondent be placed in the custody of his counsel. The record shows that a warrant
contends that the motion filed by the accused was in compliance with an of arrest for the said accused had already been issued long before he
order by the court for the accused to file a formal petition for bail. filed a motion to quash warrant of arrest and for judicial determination of
However, no such order requiring the accused to file a formal petition for probable cause. Thus, at the time of the filing of the motion to place the
bail can be found in the record. The undersigned is thus convinced that said accused under the custody of counsel dated December 4, 2002, the
the respondent did not conduct a hearing before he granted the motion accused was technically a fugitive in the eyes of the law. In granting the
filed by the accused for the grant of provisional liberty. said motion on the same day when it was filed, the respondent acted
prematurely and incongruously in allowing the accused to be placed
Jurisprudence is replete with decisions on the procedural necessity of a under the custody of counsel when, in fact, the freedom of the accused
hearing, whether summary or otherwise, relative to the grant of bail, had yet to be curtailed.
especially in cases involving offenses punishable by death, reclusion
perpetua, or life imprisonment, whether bail is a matter of discretion. The basic rule is that the right to bail, or in this case to be released on
Under the present Rules, a hearing is mandatory in granting bail whether recognizance, can only be availed of by a person who is in the custody of
it is a matter of right or discretion. It must be stressed that the grant or the the law or otherwise deprived of his liberty. The respondent also deprived
denial of bail, in cases where bail is a matter of discretion, hinges on the the prosecution of the opportunity to prove that the evidence of guilt of
issue of whether or not the evidence of guilt of the accused is strong, and said accused is strong, considering that the accused was charged with
the determination of whether or not the evidenceis strong is a matter of murder.
judicial discretion which remains with the judge. In order for the latter to Likewise, in granting the motion to recall the warrant of arrest,
properly exercise his discretion, he must first conduct a hearing to the respondent did not allow the prosecution sufficient time to oppose
determine whether the evidence, he must first conduct a hearing to said motion. There is no showing that respondent conducted a hearing to
determine whether the evidence of guilt is strong. In fact, even in cases determine whether or not there was probable cause which respondent
where there is no petition for bail, a hearing should still be held. contends was made the basis of his recall of the warrant of arrest
After the hearing, the court’s order granting or refusing bail must contain previously issued.
a summary of the evidence of the prosecution and, based thereon, the For this irregularity in the recall of the warrant of arrest and for allowing
judge should formulate his own conclusion as to whether the evidence so the accused to be placed in the custody of his counsel, the undersigned
presented is strong enough to indicate the guilt of the accused. However, recommends that the respondent be fined P20,000.00
the July 2, 2002 order of the respondent judge does not contain such
summary and conclusion.
Anent the charge in Criminal Case No. 4037, the undersigned did not find were not supported by evidence, despite the findings of Judge Salvador
any impropriety in the respondent’s act of citing the witness in contemot P. Jakosalem, Acting Presiding Judge, MCTC, Sta. Margarita, Samar of
of court. There is no showing that the respondent acted with malice and probable cause for the crime of murder. In Criminal Case No. 3718,
bad faith.13 (Emphasis and underscoring supplied) the information for murder was downgraded by Judge Navidad to
Accordingly, Justice Dicdican recommended that respondent be fined in homicide. Similarly, he dismissed Criminal Case No. 4373 on the ground
the total amount of ₱40,000.14 that the qualifying circumstance of abuse of superior strength was not
supported by any credible evidence, despite the contrary.
Re: A.M. No. RTJ-06-1977
... On March 22, 2004, Judge Navidad was also directed to explain (a) his
Per his October 25, 2006 Manifestation,15 Justice Dicdican manifested his failure to decide Criminal Cases Nos. 3440, 3093 and 3274 within the
incompetency in passing upon the findings made by the judicial team that reglementary period, (b) his inaction in fifty-one (51) cases, (c) why he
conducted the audit in Branch 32 and thus prayed that the matter be allowed the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 3701, 4101, 4109 and 4110
referred to the OCA. to be placed under the custody of Atty. Fiel, and (d) to inform the Court
As recommended and prayed for, the results of the judicial audit were whether the pending incidents in Criminal Cases Nos. 3585, 3586, 4248,
referred to the OCA which, by Memorandum dated September 12, 4312, 4373, 4350 and 4101 and Civil Cases Nos. 850, 809, 846, 747 and
2007,16 came up with the following findings: 792 had already been resolved.
The audit team found that Judge Navidad failed to decide Criminal Cases In his Comments, Judge Navidad claimed that Criminal Cases Nos. 3440,
Nos. 3440, 3043 and 3274 within the reglementary periods. Instead of 3093 and 3274 were not yet submitted for decision when the audit was
deciding these cases after the expiration of the period to file conducted. He said that the prosecution in Criminal Cases Nos. 3440 and
memorandum, respondent judge issued Orders similarly dated July 3, 3093 had not yet formally offered evidence, while the parties in Criminal
2003 directing the parties to "study their cases and submit the necessary Case No. 3274 had not yet filed their respective memoranda. He also
pleadings so that the cases can be disposed of accordingly." informed the Court that the incidents in Criminal Cases Nos. 3585, 3586,
4248, 4312, 4350, 4373 and 4101 and Civil Cases Nos. 850, 809, 846,
There were eleven (11) cases with pending motions/incidents which 747 and 792 were already resolved.
Judge Navidad failed to resolve within the reglementary period. These
are Criminal Cases Nos. 3585, 3586[,] 4248, 4312, 4373, 4350 and 4101; Judge Navidad contended that some cases were left unacted upon
and Civil Cases Nos. 809, 846, 747 and 712. Moreover, fifty-one (51) because his court personnel failed to archive ten (10) cases, the police
cases had not been acted upon by Judge Navidad for a considerable officers failed to make return of the warrants of arrest issued in eighteen
length of time which have not moved since then, to wit: 3631, 4143, (18) cases, and in other cases, the parties failed to submit the pleadings
4098, 4082, 4179, 4180, 4097, 4098, 4036, 4084, 4125, 4126, 4226, he required them to file.
3783, 4122, 3724, 3869, 3902, 3914, 3943, 3975, 4001, 4022, 4080, Respondent judge explained that he released on recognizance to Atty.
4069, 4094, 4121, 4124, 4130, 4205, 4298, 3847, 4231 and 4214; and Fiel all the accused in four (4) criminal cases because the charges were
Civil Cases Nos. 845, SCA 050, SP 189, 394, 546, 722, 721, 527, 293, mere fabrications and no preliminary investigation was conducted or if
209, 675, 755, 758, 766, SCA 051 and SP 171. conducted, was improperly done...17 (Italics in the original; emphasis
xxxx supplied)
Aside from [the] four (4) cases mentioned in the complaint of Prosecutor The OCA came up with the following Evaluation:
Torrevillas, irregularities in other cases were also uncovered. Judge Judge Roberto A. Navidad should be held administratively liable for gross
Navidad released the accused under the custody of Atty. Fiel in Criminal inefficiency. He failed to decide Criminal Cases Nos. 3440, 3093 and
Cases Nos. 3701, 4101, 4109 and 4110, despite the fact that they were 3274 within the 90-day reglementary period. Judge Navidad’s contention
all facing charges for murder and homicide. Respondent judge that the cases were not yet submitted for decison when the audit was
also granted bail to the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 4109 for Murder, conducted is an outright falsehood meant to mislead this Court. The audit
and 4110 for Murder, without conducting hearing. In Criminal Case No. was conducted on October 14-17, 2003, but Criminal Cases Nos. 3440,
4350, Judge Navidad ruled that the offense committed was only homicide 3093 and 3274 were already submitted for decision on February 28,
allegedly becuase the qualifying circumstances stated in the information 2003, June 2, 2002 and April 30, 2002, respectively. The failure of the
parties to file their memoranda within the period given them is not a valid Judge Navidad should also [be] held liable for gross ignorance of the
reason for Judge Navidad not to decide the cases. A case is considered law. In granting bail without conducting any hearing to the accused in
submitted for decision upon the admission of the parties’ evidence at the Criminal Cases Nos. 4023, 4024, 3701, 4109 and 4110 who were
termination of the trial and respondent is well aware of this. Should the charged with murder and frustrated murder, respondent judge knowingly
court allow or require the submission of memorandum, the case is disregarded the well-established rule that no person charged with a
considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum capital offense, or an offense punishable by reclusion perpetua or life
or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier. imprisonment, shall be admitted to bail when evidence of guilt is strong,
The issuance of respondent judge of an Order in these cases requiring regardless of the stage of the criminal prosecution. Under the present
the parties "to file the necessary pleading so that the cases can be rule, a hearing on application for bail is mandatory. Whether bail is a
disposed of accordingly" was purposely done to subvert the 90-day matter of right or discretion, the prosecutor should be given reasonable
mandatory period to decide cases. Respondent judge could have asked notice of hearing, or at least his recommendation on the matter must be
the Court for an extension of time to decide these cases instead of sought. These tasks were ignored by the judge.
issuing this Order. If he honestly believed that he could not decide the Judge Navidad also erred in allowing the accused in Criminal Case No.
cases within the reglementary period, all he had to do was to ask for an 4147 through his counsel, to post bail notwithstanding that the accused
extension of time. The Court, cognizant of the caseload of judges and was not yet in custody of the law. The right to bail or to be released on
mindful of the difficulty encountered by them in the disposition of cases, recognizance can only be availed of by a person who is in custody of the
usually grants the request. law or otherwise deprived of his liberty. An application for admission to
Judge Navidad also failed to promptly resolve the incidents in Criminal bail of a person against whom a criminal action has been filed, but who is
Cases Nos. 3585, 3586, 4248, 4312, 4373, 4350 and 4101 and Civil still at large is premature.
Cases Nos. 809, 846, 747 and 792. The resolution of the petition for bail The judge likewise has no authority to conduct his own determination of
in Criminal Cases Nos. 3585 and 3586 was due on February 22, 2000, probable cause and downgrade the offense charged or dismiss the
yet it remained pending in October 2003 (three years and eighth months complaint for insufficiency of evidence. Judges of the Regional Trial
since then) when the audit was conducted. In Civil Case No. 792, the Courts no loner have the authority to conduct preliminary investigations.
Motion for Special Raffle was due for resolution on May 16, 2001 but was This authority was removed from them under the 1985 Rules on Criminal
likewise not yet resolved as of audit date. Procedure effective January 1, 1985. The determination of probable
xxxx cause during a preliminary investigation is a function that belongs to the
public prosecutor. Whether that function has been correctly discharged
Respondent judge ascribes his inaction in fifty-one (51) cases to the by the existence of probable cause in a case, is a matter the trial court
inadvertence of his court personnel and the failure of the police officers to itself cannot and may not be compelled to pass upon. As a general rule, if
make a return of the warrants of arrest. This is totally unacceptable. A the information is valid on its face and there is no showing of manifest
judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency of his court personnel, error, grave abuse of discretion or prejudice on the part of the public
for the latter are not guardians of the judge’s responsibilities. Efficient prosecutor, the courts should not dismiss the case for want of evidence.
court management is primarily the duty of the presiding judge. In this, he
is found wanting. As regards the cases where there were no return of the Judge Navidad should also be sanctioned for placing the accused in
warrants of arrest, Section 4, Rule 113, Revised Rules of Criminal Criminal Cases Nos. 3701, 4101, 4109 and 4110 who were charged with
Procedure requires the head of the office to whom the warrant of arrest heinous crimes under the custody of Atty. Sisenando Y. Fiel, Jr. pending
was delivered for execution to cause the warrant to be executed within re-investigation of the cases. The grant of bail based on recognizance in
ten (10) days from its receipt. Within ten (10) days after the expiration of these cases are not among the instance the accused may be released on
the period, the officer to whom it was assigned for execution shall make a recognizance.
report to the judge who issued the warrant. Thus, it is the duty of Section 15, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure
respondent judge to see to it that this is strictly complied with by the provides that "Whenever allowed by law or these Rules, the Court may
police officers assigned to serve the warrants. His failure to faithfully release a person in custody on his own recognizance or that of a
comply with this duty has contributed to the delay in the disposition of responsible person." The accused may be released on recognizance
cases in his court. under Republic Act No. 6036[,] P.D. No. 603[,] and P.D. 968, as
amended. Also, Section 16 of Rule 114, Revised Rules of Criminal which is of public knowledge in Calbayog City. Judges must maintain and
Procedure explicitly provides, "A person in custody for a period equal to preserve the trust and faith of the parties-litigants. They must hold
or more than the minimum of the principal penalty prescribed for the themselves above reproach and suspicion. At the very first sign of lack of
offense charged, without application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law faith and trust in his actions, whether well-grounded or not, the judge has
or any modifying circumstance, shall be released on a reduced bail or on no alternative but to inhibit himself from the case. Judge Navidad’s
his own recognizance, at the discretion of the court." persistent refusal to recuse himself from the case has impaired the
It is clear that Judge Navidad not only failed to perform his duties in people’s faith in the court and destroyed the ideal of impartial
accordance with the Rules, but he has also been acting willfully, and administration of justice.
grossly disregarding and defying the law and controlling Respondent judge’s comportment shows that he is not an upright man of
jurisprudence. Verily, his actions indicate a blatant contempt for the law the law who deserves to sit on the bench. That an NGO, the Samarenos
and the rules of procedure. This cannot be countenanced especially for Equity, Justice and Reform, saw it fit to file a case against him, shows
because the laws involved are simple and elementary for which he how badly he has performed as member of the bench. Such reputation
cannot claim ignorance. It is imperative that a judge be conversant with by itself has besmirched the integrity not only of his court but more
basic legal principles and be aware of well-settled authoritative doctrines. omportantly of the entire juducial system which he represents.
When the inefficiency springs from a failure to consider a basic and Respondent does not deserve to remain any further in the bench.
elemental rule, law or principle in the discharge of his duties, a judge is Informatively, Judge Navidad was absent for the whole month of May
either incompetent and undeserving of the position and title he holds or is 2007 as reported to OCA by Executive Judge Reynaldo B. Clemens,
too vicious that the oversight or omission was deliberately done in bad RTC, Calbayog City, Samar., However, on July 30, 2007, the Leave
faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority. Division, Office of the Administrative Services, OCA received a Certificate
This is not the first time Judge Navidad has been charged of Service of Judge Navidad for May 2007 stating that he had rendered
administratively. Verification with the the Statistical Reports Division, the services required of him by the law for the period May 1, 2007 to May
CMO-OCA shows that from the time Judge Navidad was appointed to the 31, 2007 except on May 16, 17, 18 and 21 when he was on sick leave
judiciary (January 30, 1987), several cases had been filed against him[.] and on May 22, 23, 24 and 25 when he was on vacation leave. He did
xxxx not indicate therein that he was also absent from May 2-15, 2007....He
was also absent on June 1, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 12, 13, 14, 15, 18, 25, 27, 28,
While several of the charges were dismissed, this however is not at all and 29, 2007 , but he declares in his Certificate of Service for that month
reflective of his innocence, because the issues raised in these cases that he was absent only on June 6, 7, 8, 28 and 29. Likewise, his
were judicial in nature, hence, improper for an administrative charge, or Certificate of Service for July 2007 showed that he was absent only on
respondent had already inhibited from the case, or complainants failed to July 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10 but Judge Clemens reported that Judge Navidad
attend the investigation conducted by investigating justices/judges and did not render service on July 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 9, 10, 11, 16, 19, 20, 23, 24,
failed to substantiate their charges. There were complaints though which 25, 26, 27 and 30. Attached to Judge Navidad’s Certificates of Service for
even if dismissed, the Court nevertheless rebuked respondent judge and June and July 4, 5, 6, 9 and 10, 2007. All his leave applications did not
reminded him to be more circumspect in the performance of his duties, bear the signature and approval of his Executive Judge, Judge Clemens.
reprimanded him for improper conduct, advised him to refrain from the Simply put, he was absent without leave.
use of intemperate language or the use of the words "Supreme Court" in
any of his judgments, orders, letters and correspondence presumably to Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office
show that these acts were authorized by or had the imprimatur of the but also to the personal demeanor of judges. In the case at bar,
Court, to avoid any misinterpretation and confusion by the public and respondent judge violated Sections 1 and 2 of Canon 2 of the New Code
directed him to couch his inhibition orders in clear and specific language. of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary[.]

Respondent judge’s outrageous conduct was again exhibited recently xxxx

when he stubbornly refused to inhibit himself in Civil Case No. 586 Judge Navidad also violated Sections 1 and 2, Canon 4 of the same
(Ciriaco Tan vs. Emmanuel Lao), despite the fact that he is residing in a Code, which provides that "Judges shall avoid impropriety and the
building owned by plaintiff, in that case, a fact he has not denied, and appearance of impropriety in all of their activities. As a subject of
constant public scrutiny, judges must accept personal restrictions that If the rule or law is so elementary, as the above-quoted sections of Rule
might be viewed as burdensome by the ordinary citizen and should do so 114 are, not to know it or to act as if he does not know it constitutes gross
freely and willingly. In particular, judges shall conduct themselves in a ignorance of the law, without even the complainant having to prove
way that is consistent with the dignity of the judicial office." malice or bad faith on the part of the judge, as it can be clearly inferred
Respondent judge likewise transgressed the Judge’s Oath wherein he from the error committed.21 On this score, as reflected in the Investigating
swore that he shall perform his judicial duties efficiently, fairly and to the Justice’s and the OCA’s separate reports, the Court finds respondent
best of his knowledge and ability.18 (Italics in the original; Emphasis and guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
underscoring supplied)) Respondent also committed undue delay in disposing of the
The OCA thereupon recommended respondent’s dismissal from the cases assigned to him. Judges have the sworn duty to administer justice
service for gross ignorance of and contempt for the law, gross inefficiency without undue delay. A judge who fails to do so has to suffer the
and negligence and violations of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for consequences of his omission, as any delay in the disposition of cases
the Philippine Judiciary and the Judge’s Oath.19 undermines the people’s faith in the Judiciary.22

The Court finds the respective recommendations of the Investigating Inability to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and
Justice and the OCA well-taken. constitutes gross inefficiency. The Court has constantly reminded judges
to decide cases promptly. Delay not only results in undermining the
Rule 114, on bail, of the Rules of Court reads people’s faith in the judiciary from whom the prompt hearing of their
Sec. 8. Burdern of proof in bail application. – At the hearing of an applications is anticipated and expected; it also reinforces in the mind of
application for bail filed by a person who is in custody for the commission the litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly,
of an offense punishable by death, reclusion perpetua, or life and worse, it invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge.
imprisonment, the prosecution has the burdern of showing that evidence Likewise, delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a
of guilt is strong. The evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be judge within the reglementary period of 90-days fixed by the constitution
considered automatically reproduced at the trial but, upon motion of and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. We
either party, the court may recall any witness for additional examination cannot countenance such undue delay by a judge, especially at a time
unless the latter is dead, outside the Philippines, or otherwise unable to when clogging of court dockets is still the bane of the judiciary, whose
testify. present leadership has launched an all out program to minimize, if not
xxxx totally eradicate, docket congestion and undue delay in the disposition of
cases. Prompt disposition of cases is attained basically through the
Sec. 18. Notice of application to prosecutor. – In the application for bail efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. If they do not possess these
under section 8 of this Rule, the court must give reasonable notice of the traits, delay in the disposition of cases is inevitable, to the prejudice of
hearing to the prosecutor or require him to submit his litigants. Accordingly, judges should be imbued with a high sense of duty
recommendation. (Italics in the original; underscoring supplied) and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to promptly
While it is well-settled that the courts cannot interfere with the discretion administer justice.23
of the public prosecutor to determine the specificity and adequacy of the In the course of exculpating himself, respondent committed dishonesty,
offense charged, the judge may dismiss a complaint if he finds it to be by falsely claiming, for instance, that Criminal Case Nos. 3440, 3093 and
insufficient in form or substance or without any ground; otherwise, he 3274 were not yet submitted for decision when the judicial audit was
may proceed with the case if in his view it is sufficient and proper in conducted, and that he conducted bail hearings, albeit the records do not
form.20 show so.
In the discharge of a judge’s duties, however, when the inefficiency Likewise, among other things, in his Certificates of Service for May, 2007,
springs from a failure to consider so basic and elemental a rule, a law or respondent declared that he was on sick leave on May 16, 17, 18 and 21,
a principle, the judge is either too incompetent and undeserving of the and on vacation leave from May 22, 23, 24 and 25. Executive Judge
position and title he holds, or is too vicious that the oversight or omission Reynaldo Clemens declared, however, that respondent was absent for
was deliberately done in bad faith and in grave abuse of judicial authority. the entire month of May 2007. 1avv phi 1
Dishonesty, especially when committed by judges who are supposedly
the visible representation of the law, not only tends to mislead the Court;
it also tarnishes the image of the judiciary.
Dishonesty is defined as the disposition to lie, cheat, deceive or defraud;
untrustworthiness; lack of integrity; lack of honesty, probity or integrity in
principle; lack of fairness and straightforwardness; disposition to defraud,
deceive or betray. This is a grave offense that carries the extreme
penalty of dismissal from the service, even for the first offense, with
forefeiture of retirement benefirs except accrued leave credits and
perpetual disqualification from re-employment in government service.24
Respondent, on his inaction in 51 cases, ascribes it to the inefficiency of
his staff and the failure of the police officers to make a return of the
warrants of arrest.
Judges cannot, however, take refuge in the inefficiency or
mismanagement of his court personnel since proper and efficient court
management is their responsibility. Court personnel are not the guardians
of judges’ responsibilities. It is the duty of judges to devise an efficient
recording and filing system in their courts to enable them to monitor the
flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition.25 And
as correctly pointed out by the OCA, it is the judge’s duty to see to it that
the police officers assigned to execute the warrants comply with Section
4, Rule 113, requiring them to make a report to the judge who issued the
warrant within ten days after the expiration of the period within which to
execute the warrant.
Respondent was felled by a bullet of an assassin on January 14, 2008,
however, in view of which the penalty of dismissal that the proven
charges against him call for can no longer be imposed. He could still be
fined, however, in the amount of ₱40,000 each in A.M. No. RTJ-06-1976
and A.M. No. RTJ-06-1977, to be deducted from the benefits due him.
WHEREFORE, for Dishonesty, Gross Ignorance of and Contempt for the
Law, Gross Inefficiency and Negligence, and Violations of the New Code
of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary and the Judge’s Oath,
respondent, Judge Roberto A. Navidad, who has, in the meantime died,
is in each of these cases subject of this Decision FINED the amount of
Forty Thousand (₱40,000) Pesos. The Financial Management Office,
Office of the Court Administrator is authorized to deduct the total sum of
Eighty Thousand (P80,000) Pesos from the benefits due respondent and
to release the remaining amount to his heirs unless there exists another
lawful cause for withholding the same.
SO ORDERED