DECIDE GMA'S FATE DESCRIBED AS 'FIGHTING JUDGE'
[PHOTO
- FILIPINO MUSLIMS JOIN PROTEST VS GMA IN FRONT OF THE SUPREME COURT BUILDING]
MANILA,
NOVEMBER 19, 2011 (STAR)
By Perseus Echeminada - Pasay City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Judge Jesus Mupas
refused to comment on the election sabotage case against former President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, which was raffled off to him yesterday.
"This is a very sensitive case," the 52-year-old Mupas told reporters.
He briefly emerged for a photo opportunity and returned to his chambers to
review the high profile case.
A 1984 graduate of Manuel L. Quezon University in Manila, Mupas began his
career as a prosecutor of the Department of Justice.
He also served as judge in Cavite City before he assumed his post as
presiding judge of Pasay City Regional Trial Court Branch 112.
A native of Burgos, Pangasinan, Mupas is married to a lawyer. They have three
children.
"He is very kind to us, he takes his lunch with us," a female court employee
said.
Lawyer Joel Pelicano, clerk of Court, said Mupas is a "fighting judge" as far
as due process and the rule of law is concerned.
Upon receipt of the complaint from the Commission on Elections (Comelec),
Mupas immediately began studying the urgent motion for issuance of a hold
departure order (HDO), he added.
Under normal process, a respondent for HDO is given 10 days to reply to the
motion before the court rules, he said.
Pelicano said as far as the Pasay City RTC is concerned the HDO request of
the Comelec is still under study.
Pelicano said considering the time limit, it is unlikely that an HDO will be
issued to GMA within the day.
This is the first time since Mupas assumed his post that a high profile case
has entered his sala. Others facing election sabotage charges are former
election chairman Benjamin Abalos, Lintang Bedol and Andal Ampatuan Jr.
Pelicano said Mupas will review the Comelec complaint before issuing an
arrest warrant or HDO against the respondents.
A total of eight books containing documentary evidence were received by the
court.
Among the documents submitted to the court was the decision of the Senate
Electoral Tribunal which declared Sen. Aquilino Pimentel III the duly-elected
senator in the 2007 elections.
The election sabotage complaint was filed by Pimentel after several witnesses
came out and exposed the alleged anomalies. Election sabotage is a non-bailable
offense.
FROM FACEBOOK
Jesus
to decide GMA's fate. by Move.PH on Thursday, November 17, 2011 at
9:30pm .
(To read and comment on this story, please visit and "like"
www.facebook.com/Move.PH.
Please also follow @MovePH on Twitter.)
Will the administration score a hold departure order against Rep. Gloria
Arroyo? Judge Jesus Mupas of Pasay City regional trial court branch 112 will
decide.
Voting 8-5, the Supreme Court has decided to keep the temporary restraining
order on the Watch List Order issued against Arroyo by the Department of
Justice. This means, only an HDO from the Pasay Court can keep Arroyo from
leaving the country.
After a special raffle morning of November 18, Mupas was assigned the
electoral sabotage case filed by the Commission on Elections (Comelec) against
Arroyo, former Maguindanao Gov. Andal Ampatuan Sr., and former Comelec officer
Lintang Bedol.
Mupas has two issues to decide. One, decide if the three respondents are
guilty of rigging the 2007 senatorial elections. This decision is not expected
within the day. Two, decide if an HDO is necessary. The decision is expected
within the day.
Comelec pulled the surprise move Friday morning.
Branch 112 officially received the information and the motion around
noontime. He came out of his locked sala to grant media requests to take photos
and video of him, but he did not grant interviews.
According to clerk of court Joel Pelicano, two things can happen within the
afternoon: 1) Mupas will issue the HDO, or 2) Mupas will ask Arroyo, Ampatuan,
and Bedol to respond to the urgent motion of the Comelec.
Speculations about an electoral sabotage case have been circulating since
Monday to supposedly secure an arrest warrant against Arroyo. Justice Department
Secretary Leila De Lima feared that if Arroyo is allowed to leave the country,
she will not return to face various cases filed against her.
The electoral sabotage case involved cheating in the 2007 Maguindanao
elections.
EARLIER (2008) REPORT FROM THE
SUPREME COURT LIBRARY
JUDGE JESUS B. MUPAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT JUDGE CHARGED,
GUILTY, FINED
Decisions / Signed Resolutions
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-07-2067, June 18, 2008]
NILO JAY MINA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JESUS B. MUPAS, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 112, PASAY CITY RESPONDENT.
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Nilo Jay Mina (complainant) charges Judge Jesus B. Mupas (respondent),
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 112, Pasay City of
dereliction of duties, grave misconduct, manifest partiality, violation of the
Constitution and of the Anti-graft and Corrupt Practices Act.[1]
Complainant is the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 05-0187 for Damages against
Pasay City Judge Bibiano Colasito, Assistant City Prosecutor Eva Portugal
Atienza and Ferdinand Cruz pending before respondent's sala.[2] Complainant
claims, in his letter dated January 2, 2007 that: respondent failed to resolve
within the reglementary period complainant's Urgent Motion to Declare all
Defendants in Default, which motion was received by the court on May 12, 2006;
up to the filing of the present complaint, or more than seven months later,
respondent still has not resolved the said motion; respondent's failure to meet
the 90-day period for resolving motions prescribed by the Constitution
constitutes gross inefficiency and manifests respondent's partiality in favor of
the defendants in the civil case.[3]
In his Comment dated February 2, 2007, respondent counters: he was surprised
to receive on January 26, 2007 an Order from this Court asking him to comment on
complainant's letter, since he had already resolved complainant's urgent motion,
as well as two motions to dismiss filed by defendants Cruz and Atienza, way back
December 18, 2006. Copies of the said Order, however, were inadvertently not
served on complainant and Cruz. He (respondent) admits that the motions were
resolved beyond the reglementary period. Such inadvertence, however, is
excusable and would have been avoided had complainant exercised the least
courtesy of calling the attention of the court on the matter. Complainant should
have filed a motion to resolve, which in turn would be received with prompt
action. The filing of the instant case without verifying first the status of the
motions is unwarranted and constitutes harassment. Respondent is handling two
branches, Branch 112 and Branch 117, each receiving the same number of cases,
with Branch 117 being a special commercial court.[4]
Complainant filed a Reply dated March 5, 2007, stating that respondent's
admission that he had resolved the motions beyond the reglementary period, i.e.,
eight months for the two motions to dismiss and seven months for the urgent
motion to declare defendants in default, demonstrates his dishonesty,
inefficiency and incompetence as a judge.[5]
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), through Court Administrator
Christopher O. Lock, submitted its Report dated June 4, 2007, finding respondent
administratively liable for violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, which requires judges to dispose of court business promptly. It held
that the Constitution mandates lower courts to dispose of cases promptly and
decide them within three months from the filing of the last pleading; the fact
that respondent had additional assignments will not exonerate him from
liability, because he was not precluded from asking for extension of time to
resolve a pending matter. It then recommended, following Section 9, Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, that respondent be fined P11,000.00 with stern warning.[6]
In the Resolution dated August 1, 2007, the Court required the parties to
manifest if they were willing to submit the case for decision based on the
pleadings filed.[7] Complainant manifested his willingness to have the case thus
submitted.[8] Respondent, however, manifested his preference for a formal
investigation.[9] The Court on November 12, 2007, thus referred the case to
Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr. of the Court of Appeals for investigation,
report and recommendation.[10] Both parties appeared at the hearing on February
15, 2008 and thereafter agreed to submit the case for decision.[11]
In his Report dated February 18, 2008, Investigating Justice Villarama found
respondent guilty of incurring delay in resolving motions and incidents pending
before him, which infraction constitutes gross inefficiency and is not excused
by his additional assignment; respondent also failed to timely transmit the
order resolving said motions to the parties. As to the charge of partiality,
however, Investigating Justice Villarama found no evidence to support the same.
The Investigating Justice then recommended that respondent be meted a fine of
P10,000.00 with warning.[12]
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the Investigating
Justice.
The Constitution requires all lower courts to decide or resolve cases or
matters within three months from the time said matter is submitted for decision
or resolution.[13] The New Code of Judicial Conduct[14] in Canon 6, Section 5,
also mandates judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness;[15]
while its antecedent, the Code of Judicial Conduct[16] provides in Rule 3.05
thereof that "judge[s] shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide
cases within the required periods."
These rules are in recognition of the right of every person to the speedy
disposition of their cases.[17] For, as oft stated, justice delayed is justice
denied. Indeed, the public's faith and confidence in the judiciary depends, to a
large extent, on the judicious and prompt disposition of cases and matters
pending before the courts.[18] Any delay in the disposition of cases diminishes
the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary.[19] It erodes faith in the
judicial system and unnecessarily blemishes its stature.[20] Judges must
therefore perform their official duties with utmost competence and diligence,
and they should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the
discharge of their obligation to promptly administer justice.[21] Judges must
cultivate a capacity for quick decision, and must not delay the judgment which a
party justly deserves.[22] For, truly, inability to decide a case within the
required period is inexcusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, which
warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring
magistrate.[23]
Respondent in his Comment admitted that he had incurred delay in resolving
complainant's Urgent Motion to Declare All Defendants in Default as well as the
motions to dismiss of Cruz and Atienza. Complainant filed the urgent motion on
May 12, 2006 which was submitted for resolution on May 19, 2006, while
defendants' motions to dismiss, which were filed on March 20, 2006 and April 7,
2006, were submitted for resolution on April 21, 2006. Yet, it was only on
December 18, 2006 that respondent issued an order resolving all three
motions.[24]
Respondent explains that he is handling two branches, each receiving the same
number of cases, one of which is a special commercial court.[25] The Court has
held, however, that additional assignments cannot excuse judges from
liability.[26] If the caseload of the judge prevents the disposition of cases
within the reglementary period, he should ask the Court for a reasonable
extension of time to dispose of the cases involved.[27] The Court is mindful of
the heavy caseloads judges carry.[28] Thus, the Court has been sympathetic and
usually grants requests for reasonable extensions of time within which to decide
cases and resolve matters and incidents related thereto.[29] Respondent,
however, did not ask for any extension; thus, the Court has no recourse but to
hold him administratively liable for the delay.
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies
"undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of
a case" as a less serious charge which is punishable by any of the following
sanctions: (1) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not
less than one month or more than three months; or (2) a fine of more than
P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
Considering, however, the mitigating circumstances in his favor such as
respondent's heavy caseload and additional court assignment,[30] his candid
admission of his inadvertence,[31] and the fact that this is his first offense
of this nature[32] in his 13 years of service as a judge, the Court finds the
penalty of P10,000.00 fine to be proper in this case.[33]
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Jesus B. Mupas, of the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 112, Pasay City, guilty of undue delay in rendering an order for
which he is FINED in the amount of P10,000.00 with STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, (Chairperson), Chico-Nazario, Reyes, and Brion,. JJ.,
concur.
Chief News Editor: Sol Jose Vanzi
© Copyright, 2011 by
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE
All rights reserved
PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE [PHNO] WEBSITE
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------------
-------------------------------------------------------------
Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/phnotweet
This is the PHILIPPINE HEADLINE NEWS ONLINE (PHNO) Mailing List.
To stop receiving our news items, please send a blank e-mail addressed to: phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Please visit our homepage at: http://www.newsflash.org/
(c) Copyright 2009. All rights reserved.
-------------------------------------------------------------Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/phno/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
phno-digest@yahoogroups.com
phno-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
phno-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
