A.M. No. MTJ-99-1238. January 24, 2003 ENGR. EDGARDO R. TORCENDE, complainant, vs. JUDGE AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO, respondent. I. Facts Complainant is the accused in two (2) criminal cases for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. In the prior three (3) consecutive hearings scheduled by Judge Sardido, the accused Edgardo Torcende and his counsel appeared but the private complainant, as well as the private and public prosecutors did not. On one of the hearing the accused filed an Omnibus Motion, one of which is to postpone trial on the day of the said hearing. Respondent denied the Omnibus Motion for lack of notice of hearing which according to the respondent a violation of the rule on motions. Accused filed with the SC a complaint affidavit charging respondent judge with serious misconduct, alleging that respondent judge had committed manifest partiality in the discharge of his official functions by giving unwarranted benefits to the other party. II. Issue Whether the respondent had properly dismissed the complainant’s Omnibus motion for want of the requirement imposed by Rule 15 Section 4 of the Rules of Court. III. Ruling The respondent based the contested dismissal on Rule 15 Section 4 of the Rules of Court which provides that: “Notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned, at least three (3) days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of any affidavits and other papers accompanying it. The court, however, for good cause may hear a motion on shorter notice, especially on matters which the court may dispose on its own motion.” The prosecutors, however, had likewise earlier filed urgent motions for postponement on three (3) successive hearings scheduled where they did not appear, these incidents shoul d have been consider ed by responde nt. Fundamental dict ates of fairnes s should have pro mpt ed res pondent to giv e complainant the same measure of liberalit y he accorded the prosecution. The grant or denial of a motion for postponement is addressed to the sound discretion of the court, which should always be predicated on the consideration that more than the mere convenience of the courts or of the parties in the case, the ends of justice and fairness should be served thereby. After all, postponements and continuances are part and parcel of our procedural system of dispensing justice. When no substantial rights are affected and the intention to delay is not manifest it is sound judicial discretion to allow the same to the end that the merits of the case may be fully ventilated.

TORCENDE v. SARDIDO 1

Download PDF Report

Upload
jose-bautista
View
219
Download
0

Embed Size (px)

Citation preview

8/3/2019 TORCENDE v. SARDIDO 1

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/torcende-v-sardido-1 1/2

A.M. No. MTJ-99-1238. January 24, 2003

ENGR. EDGARDO R. TORCENDE, complainant,vs. JUDGE AGUSTIN T. SARDIDO, respondent.

I. Facts

Complainant is the accused in two (2) criminal cases for Violation of Batas PambansaBlg. 22. In the prior three (3) consecutive hearings scheduled by Judge Sardido, theaccused Edgardo Torcende and his counsel appeared but the private complainant, aswell as the private and public prosecutors did not. On one of the hearing the accusedfiled an Omnibus Motion, one of which is to postpone trial on the day of the said hearing.

Respondent denied the Omnibus Motion for lack of notice of hearing which according tothe respondent a violation of the rule on motions.

Accused filed with the SC a complaint affidavit charging respondent judge with seriousmisconduct, alleging that respondent judge had committed manifest partiality in thedischarge of his official functions by giving unwarranted benefits to the other party.

II. Issue

Whether the respondent had properly dismissed the complainant’s Omnibus motion forwant of the requirement imposed by Rule 15 Section 4 of the Rules of Court.

III. Ruling

The respondent based the contested dismissal on Rule 15 Section 4 of the Rules of Courtwhich provides that:

“Notice of a motion shall be served by the applicant to all parties concerned, at leastthree (3) days before the hearing thereof, together with a copy of the motion, and of anyaffidavits and other papers accompanying it. The court, however, for good cause mayhear a motion on shorter notice, especially on matters which the court may dispose onits own motion.”

The prosecutors, however, had likewise earlier filed urgent motions for postponement onthree (3) successive hearings scheduled where they did not appear, these incidentsshould have been considered by respondent. Fundamental dictates of fairness should

have prompted respondent to give complainant the same measure of liberality heaccorded the prosecution.

The grant or denial of a motion for postponement is addressed to the sound discretion ofthe court, which should always be predicated on the consideration that more than themere convenience of the courts or of the parties in the case, the ends of justice andfairness should be served thereby. After all, postponements and continuances are partand parcel of our procedural system of dispensing justice. When no substantial rights areaffected and the intention to delay is not manifest it is sound judicial discretion to allowthe same to the end that the merits of the case may be fully ventilated.