Scribd Logo
Upload

Welcome to Scribd!

  • Torrevillas Vs Judge Navidad

    Uploaded by

    Angela De Leon
    76 views2 pages
    1) Judge Roberto A. Navidad was accused of inappropriate handling of cases in his court. 2) An investigation was conducted which found irregularities and procedural lapses in Judge Navidad's handling of cases. 3) The OCA recommended that Judge Navidad be administratively liable for gross inefficiency based on their findings.

    Original Description:

    Original Title

    28. Torrevillas vs Judge Navidad

    Copyright

    © © All Rights Reserved

    Available Formats

    DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd

    Did you find this document useful?

    Is this content inappropriate?

    Report this Document
    1) Judge Roberto A. Navidad was accused of inappropriate handling of cases in his court. 2) An investigation was conducted which found irregularities and procedural lapses in Judge Navidad's handling of cases. 3) The OCA recommended that Judge Navidad be administratively liable for gross inefficiency based on their findings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    76 views2 pages

    Torrevillas Vs Judge Navidad

    Uploaded by

    Angela De Leon
    1) Judge Roberto A. Navidad was accused of inappropriate handling of cases in his court. 2) An investigation was conducted which found irregularities and procedural lapses in Judge Navidad's handling of cases. 3) The OCA recommended that Judge Navidad be administratively liable for gross inefficiency based on their findings.

    Copyright:

    © All Rights Reserved
    Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
    Flag for inappropriate content
    Download as docx, pdf, or txt
    of 2

    FACTS PROVINCIAL

    On July 16, 2003, Provincial Prosecutor


    PROSECUTOR Manuel Torrevillas,
    MANUEL Jr. called the
    F. TORREVILLAS v.
    attention of then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. the “inapropriate
    JUDGE ROBERTO A. NAVIDAD
    actuation” of Judge Roberto A. Navidad of the RTC of Calabayog City in
    A.M. No. RTJ-06-1976
    the handling of cases Formerly OCA IPI No. 03-1857
    before his sala.
    April 29, 2009
     Ponente: Justice
    The Chief Justice thus instructed the Carpio Morales
    Provincial Prosecutor to submit a
    written report to which he complied by letter-complaint.

     By 1st Endorsement, the letter-complaint was referred by the Chief Justice


    to then Court Administrator and now a member of this Court, Presbitero J.
    Velasco, Jr., for comment and recommendation.

     By Resolution, the Court acting on the recommendations of Justice Velasco


    in his Memorandum to the Chief Justice, required Judge Navidad to
    comment on the complaint and directed the Court Management Office of
    the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to:

    1. conduct a judicial audit on “all undecided criminal cases, which include


    cases that are pending, submitted for decision, archived, etc. for the
    purpose of determining any inappropriate actuation with respect to
    the issuance of court orders especially on matters pertaining to the grant
    of bail in non-bailable offenses”; and

    2. coordinate with Trial Prosecutor Cicero T. Lampasa as regards the other


    cases that needed to be investigated.

     By Resolution, the Court referred the complaint to Justice Isaias P.


    Dicdican of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and
    recommendation.

     Justive Dicdican then evaluated and has come up with a finding that the
    respondent had indeed committed irregularities and procedural lapses in
    the handling of the cases pending before his sala.

    OCA’s REPORT and  The OCA recommended that the Judge Roberto A. Navidad should be held
    RECOMMENDATIO administratively liable for gross inefficiency.
    N
     Judge Navidad's contention that the cases were not yet submitted for
    decison when the audit was conducted is an outright falsehood meant to
    mislead this Court.

     The failure of the parties to file their memoranda within the period given
    them is not a valid reason for Judge Navidad not to decide the cases.

     A case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the


    parties' evidence at the termination of the trial and respondent is well
    aware of this. Should the court allow or require the submission of
    memorandum, the case is considered submitted for decision upon the
    filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so,
    whichever is earlier.

     Respondent judge could have asked the Court for an extension of time to
    decide these cases instead of issuing this Order. If he honestly believed
    that he could not decide the cases within the reglementary period, all he
    had to do was to ask for an extension of time.

     The Court being mindful of the caseload of judges and mindful of the
    difficulty encountered by them in the disposition of cases, usually grants
    the request.

    THE COURT’S  Respondent judge ascribes his inaction in 51 cases to the inadvertence of
    RULING his court personnel and the failure of the police officers to make a return

    You might also like