[go: up one dir, main page]
Scribd
Upload
65 views1 page

Report On The Judicial Audit (MTC of Tambulig) - 472 SCRA 419

The summary examines a judicial audit conducted in two municipal trial courts in Zamboanga del Sur. It was found that the acting presiding judge did not decide a civil case as required. Upon further investigation, the judge's one-page decision was found to lack facts and legal basis. The judge was found guilty of errors and violations.

Uploaded by

neilflores.richard123
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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
65 views1 page

Report On The Judicial Audit (MTC of Tambulig) - 472 SCRA 419

The summary examines a judicial audit conducted in two municipal trial courts in Zamboanga del Sur. It was found that the acting presiding judge did not decide a civil case as required. Upon further investigation, the judge's one-page decision was found to lack facts and legal basis. The judge was found guilty of errors and violations.

Uploaded by

neilflores.richard123
Copyright
© © All Rights Reserved
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

REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT OF

TAMBULIG AND THE 11TH MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT OF MAHAYAG-DUMINGAG-


JOSEFINA, BOTH IN ZAMBOANGA D EL SUR.
Facts:
- This administrative case is an offshoot of the judicial audit conducted in March 2004 in the
Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Tambulig and the 11th Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
Mahayag-Dumingag-Josefina, both in Zamboanga del Sur, in anticipation of the compulsory
retirement of the Acting Presiding Judge thereof, respondent Judge Ricardo L. Salvanera.

- In the audit report on 11th MCTC of Mahayag-Dumingag-Josefina, the Audit Team discovered that
respondent judge did not decide yet Civil Case No. 183-M, which was considered submitted for
decision based on the plaintiff's evidence because the defendant was declared in default for his
failure to appear at the scheduled hearing. Respondent Judge contends this and says that he gave a
decision on this case on March 25, 2004 (The focus on the topic will be this particular case amongst
all the other cases).

- Finding the explanation of Judge Salvanera unsatisfactory, the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) recommended that the Report on the Judicial Audit be re-docketed as a regular administrative
matter amongst other things against respondent judge.
Issue/s:
- Whether the respondent had erred in his delivery of justice;
Ruling/Held:
- YES. Upon investigation, it was made known that the decision made by respondent judge in Civil
Case No. 183-M dated March 25, 2004 was a mere one-page decision devoid of facts and the law on
which the violation was based. The Court identified this as a clear violation of Section 14, Article
VIII of the Constitution which provides: "No decision shall be rendered by any court without
expressing clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based." A decision that does not
clearly and distinctly state the facts and the law on which it is based leaves the parties in the dark as
to how it was reached. It is precisely prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to pinpoint the
possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal.

All told, the Court finds respondent Judge Salvanera guilty of gross inefficiency, gross ignorance of
the law, and violations of pertinent administrative circulars of the Court, which merit disciplinary
sanction.

FLORES, RICHARD NEIL J.


JD – 1A

You might also like