Case Digest: TIONGCO v. PEDRONIO

JOSE B. TIONGCO v. JUDGE FLORENTINO P. PEDRONIO

401 SCRA 431 (2003)

A judge is expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules and to apply them properly in all good faith.

Jose B. Tiongco accuses Judge Florentino Pedronio of ―Grave Abuse of Discretion, Gross Incompetence and Inefficiency Amounting to Ignorance of the Law, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge‖. The complaint arose from the alleged failure of Judge Pedronio to decide the case pending before it within the reglementary period of 3 months and his incorrect application of the Indeterminate Sentence Law. The complaint further alleges that Judge Pedronio refused to inhibit himself from deciding the case of People v. Sagutier despite Tiongco’s motion that the same be submitted for decision of Judge Rene Honrado, the former presiding judge who heard and tried the case. Finally, Tiongco brings to the Court’s attention, Judge Pedronio’s lack of mastery and command of the English language.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Pedronio is guilty of Grave Abuse of Discretion, Gross Incompetence and Inefficiency Amounting to Ignorance of the Law, and Conduct Unbecoming of a Judge

HELD:

Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, the penalty for undue delay in rendering a decision, a less serious charge, is suspension from office without salary and other benefits for one (1) to two (2) months and twenty-nine (29) days or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more than P19,999.00.

The OCA’s recommended penalty of reprimand is thus not proper. Absent any finding of malice or bad faith on the part of Judge Pedronio, however, the minimum penalty of fine in the amount of P10,000 is hereby imposed.

As to the charge of gross ignorance of the law in applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the issue is not, as the OCA finds, judicial in nature, for what is at issue is Judge Pedronio’s lack of familiarity with the Indeterminate Sentence Law which is properly the subject of an administrative proceeding.

Pedronio stresses that the penalty he imposed in People v. Mahilum carries minimum and maximum periods instead of a single penalty, which is the very essence of the Indeterminate Sentence Law.

Pedronio’s imposed penalty is, however, incorrect. Under Article 51 of the Revised Penal Code, the penalty for an attempted crime is two degrees lower than that prescribed by law. As attempted homicide is punishable by prision correccional, applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, the minimum penalty to be imposed upon the accused is anywhere within the range of One (1) Month and One (1) Day to Six (6) Months of arresto mayor, and the maximum to be taken from the medium period of prision correccional, the range of which is Two (2) Years, Four (4) Months and One (1) Day to Four (4) Years and Two (2) Months.
The Court’s ruling bears repeating: Although a judge may not always be subjected to disciplinary action for every erroneous order or decision he renders, that relative immunity is not a license to be negligent or abusive and arbitrary in performing his adjudicatory prerogatives.

Everyone, especially a judge, is presumed to know the law. And a judge is expected to exhibit more than just a cursory acquaintance with statutes and procedural rules, and to apply them properly in all good faith. Judicial competence requires no less.

For erroneously applying the Indeterminate Sentence Law, Pedronio is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.

As to the charge that Pedronio refused to inhibit himself in the case of People v. Sagutier, his Order of February 28, 2000 stating the reason behind the denial of complainant’s Motion to Inhibit is well-taken and is, at any rate, mooted by his Order of May 23, 2000 to transmit the records of the case to Judge Honrado before whom the case was submitted for decision.

And as to Pedronio’s alleged lack of mastery of the English language, the evidence on record does not suffice to support the same.