View full case

ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA v. JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER

FACTS:

The complaint was filed against Presiding Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller and Ophelia G. Suluen, both of Branch 90, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Dasmariñas City, Cavite. It was based on allegations of gross ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency, delay in the administration of justice, and impropriety. The complaint arose from Civil Case No. 398810, which was originally pending before Judge Fernando L. Felicen of Branch 20, RTC, Imus, Cavite. The case was later transferred to the sala of Judge Cabrera-Faller after Judge Felicen recused himself.

Various delays occurred in the case, resulting in multiple rescheduled hearings. The complainants argued that Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen were responsible for the delay in resolving the case. On the other hand, the respondents claimed that they did not exhibit ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency, or delay in the administration of justice.

Following an investigation by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Judge Cabrera-Faller was found guilty of gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice. However, Suluen was cleared of administrative liability. The OCA recommended that a fine be imposed on Judge Cabrera-Faller and that the charges against Suluen be dismissed.

ISSUES:

  1. Whether or not there was gross ignorance of the law on the part of Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen.

  2. Whether or not there was gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice on the part of Judge Cabrera-Faller.

  3. Whether or not Suluen is administratively liable.

RULING:

  1. The Court found that there was no evidence to support the allegation of gross ignorance of the law against Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen. The complaint did not show any act or demeanor committed by the respondents that would directly constitute impropriety in the performance of their official functions.

  2. However, the Court found Judge Cabrera-Faller guilty of gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice. The Court held that her failure to act from May 22, 2013, when the case was set for pre-trial, to July 31, 2015, when the motion to expunge was denied, was a violation of the 1987 Constitution and the Code of Judicial Ethics. The Court considered her failure to explain what transpired in 2014 as an attempt to conceal her gross inefficiency.

  3. Suluen, the OIC/Legal Researcher, was cleared of administrative liability as there was no evidence on record to substantiate the charges against her. The Court held that the responsibility to resolve the motion was with the judge and not with the OIC/Legal Researcher.

PRINCIPLES:

  • Judges should act promptly and efficiently in the administration of justice in order to avoid unnecessary delays.

  • Failure of a judge to act and explain his or her actions may be considered as gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice.