A.M. No. 12-8-160-RTC; December 10, 2012
Ambassador Harry C. Angping and Atty. Sixto Brillantes, Petitioners, vs. Judge Reynaldo G. Ros, Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Manila, Respondents.

FACTS

Petitioners, as representatives of the private complainant Philippine Sports Commission (PSC) in Criminal Case Nos. 10-274696 to 10-274704 for qualified theft, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Reynaldo G. Ros. They alleged that on March 23, 2010, the very day the cases were raffled to his branch, Judge Ros issued an order dismissing them for lack of probable cause. Petitioners filed a motion for reconsideration. In an Order dated April 16, 2010, Judge Ros directed the accused to file a comment and gave the PSC fifteen days from receipt of that comment to file a reply, after which the motion would be resolved.
The accused filed their comment on May 26, 2010, which petitioners received on June 3. However, on June 18, 2010, when petitioners filed their reply, they simultaneously received Judge Ros’s Order dated May 28, 2010, which had already denied their motion for reconsideration. Petitioners asserted that by resolving the motion without awaiting their reply as expressly promised in his April 16 Order, and by dismissing the voluminous cases with extraordinary speed on the day of raffle, Judge Ros demonstrated partiality and violated Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Ros is liable for violation of Canons 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

The Court partially concurred with the Office of the Court Administrator’s findings. On the charge under Canon 3 (performing duties with impartiality and diligence), the Court found no liability. The speed in dismissing the cases, while unusual, is not inherently improper as judges are encouraged to decide cases promptly. The correctness of his judicial assessment is a matter of judicial—not administrative—review, absent proof of bad faith, fraud, or corruption, which petitioners failed to establish.
However, the Court found Judge Ros liable for violating Canon 2, which requires a judge to avoid impropriety and the appearance of impropriety. His failure to wait for the PSC’s reply as explicitly stipulated in his own April 16 Order, resolving the motion just two days after the comment was filed, constituted a lack of prudence that compromised the integrity of the process. This procedural oversight, coupled with the precipitous dismissal on the day of raffle, created a justifiable suspicion of unfairness in the minds of the litigants, thereby eroding public confidence in the judicial system. While he apologized and claimed good faith, the careless handling raised an appearance of impropriety.
Judge Ros was ADMONISHED and STERNLY WARNED for violating Canon 2. The charge under Canon 3 was dismissed.