New Guidelines On The Filing of Applications For Optional Retirement) For Continuing To Function As A

Judge Justino G. Aventurado was found guilty by the Supreme Court of (1) gross irregularity and serious misconduct, and gross inefficiency and incompetence for failing to decide 12 cases despite requesting extensions, and (2) gross violation of Administrative Circular No. 43-2004 regarding optional retirement guidelines. While Judge served in multiple courts, this did not excuse his delays. He was fined P100,000 for each charge as he had already retired. The Supreme Court held he showed disregard for litigants' right to speedy justice and violated conditions to cease work upon optional retirement application.

Uploaded by

Harlene

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

0% found this document useful (0 votes)

94 views1 page

New Guidelines On The Filing of Applications For Optional Retirement) For Continuing To Function As A

Uploaded by

Harlene

We take content rights seriously. If you suspect this is your content, claim it here.

Available Formats

Download as DOCX, PDF, TXT or read online on Scribd

You are on page 1/ 1

CASE #120

THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs. JUDGE JUSTINO G. AVENTURADO

A.M. No. RTJ-09-2212, April 18, 2017

FACTS:
In view of the optional retirement of respondent Judge, the petitioner OCA conducted separate
judicial audits on Branch 1 and Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court in Tagum, Davao del Norte, and
on Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court in Mati, Davao Oriental, the courts in which he presided. The
Court resolved to docket the consolidated report as an administrative complaint against respondent
Judge for: (1) gross irregularity and serious misconduct, and gross inefficiency and incompetence for
failure to decide the 12 cases that were the subjects of his requests for extension of time to resolve;
and (2) gross violation of Administrative Circular No. 43-2004 dated September 6, 2004 (Adopting
New Guidelines on the Filing of Applications for Optional Retirement) for continuing to function as a
judge beyond the stated effectivity period of his optional retirement.
The OCA found and reported that in the period in question respondent Judge decided 10 civil
cases and four criminal cases assigned in Branch 1 of the RTC Tagum, whereby he acquitted the
accused; that he dismissed criminal cases and acquitted the accused in one criminal case assigned
in Branch 2 of the RTC Tagum; that he decided one criminal case assigned in Branch 5 of the RTC
Mati on January 25, 2009 in which he found the accused guilty of murder, but the decision was not
promulgated because of the intervening designation of another judge as assisting judge of that
branch; that he prepared the decision in another criminal case acquitting the accused, but the
decision was not promulgated because of the filing of a motion to suspend the promulgation; and that
he acquitted the accused in another criminal case on February 2, 2009.

ISSUE:
Whether Judge Aventurado is guilty of (1) gross irregularity and serious misconduct, and gross
inefficiency and incompetence, and (2) gross violation of Administrative Circular No. 43-2004.

HELD:
Yes. He was fined with P100,000.00 for each considering that he has already retired.
1. Gross inefficiency of respondent Judge. That he applied for optional retirement but did not exert
effort in deciding his pending cases aggravated his inefficiency and lack of dedication to his duties
as judge. He thereby manifested a wanton disregard of the constitutional rights of the litigants to
the speedy disposition of their cases in the various branches of the Regional Trial Court that he
presided. Respondent Judge attempted to explain his failure to resolve such cases by citing his
service in several branches of the Regional Trial Court in Davao. Yet, such explanation did not
exculpate him because the additional court assignments or designations imposed upon him as a
judge did not make him less liable for the delays.
2. He clearly violated the conditions imposed by the Court in Administrative Circular No. 43-2004,
which requires, among others, that the judge applying for optional retirement should already cease
working and discharging his functions as judge even if on the date specified in the application as
the date of the effectivity of the optional retirement, he has not yet received any notice of approval
or denial of his application. The Court note, indeed, that despite not having decided the 12 cases
subject of his requests for extension of time to decide, he was able to decide other civil and
criminal cases in disregard of the conditions defined by Administrative Circular No. 43-2004.