Florencio Sebastian, Jr. vs. Julia A. Reyes, 600 SCRA, 345,

September 18, 2009

Judge JR read the judgment from a computer screen without giving the accused couple a written copy or computer print-out of the decision. She merely required the couple to read it from the computer screen in camera without the presence of their counsel.

The couple raised on appeal that the trial court failed to comply with the mandate of Rule 120, or the Rules of Court and Section 14, Article VIII of the Constitution requiring that the decision must be written and signed by the judge with a clear statement of the facts and the law on which the decision is based.

Complaint against Judge JR for gross misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, incompetence and inefficiency.

It is a violation of the Constitution. The judge could have simply printed and signed the decision. Offering to a party’s counsel a diskette containing the decision when such counsel demands a written copy thereof, is unheard of in the judiciary. A verbal judgment is, in contemplation of law, in esse, ineffective. If Judge JR was not yet prepared to promulgate the decision as it was not yet printed, she could have called the case later and have it printed. A party should not be left in the dark on what issues to raise before the appellate court.

It is a requirement of due process that parties to litigations be informed of how it was decided, with an explanation of the factual and legal reasons that led to the conclusions of the court. The court cannot simply say that judgment is rendered in favor of X and against Y and just leave it at that without any justification whatsoever for its action. The losing party is entitled to know why he lost so he may appeal to a higher court, if permitted, should he believe that the decision should be reversed. 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 and is especially prejudicial to the losing party, who is unable to point the possible errors of the court for review by a higher tribunal.

If judges were allowed to roam unrestricted beyond the boundaries within which they are required by law to exercise the duties of their office, then the law becomes meaningless. A government of laws excludes the exercise of broad discretionary powers by those acting under its authority.

For having been found guilty of these charges, among others, Judge JR was declared unfit to discharge her functions a judge and dismissed from the service.

researched by: Bro. Darwin Eric Asibal