A.M. NO. RTJ-06-1979 (FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 05-2268-RTJ) - NAPOLEON CAGAS,COMPLAINANT, [FORMERLY OCA IPI NO. 05-2268-RTJ] PRESENT: VS. JUDGE ROSARIO B. TORRECAMPO, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, PILI, CAMARINES SUR.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, judges should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to promptly administer justice. [15] Anent the charge that respondent falsified her certificate of service by stating that she has no pending cases for resolution, we find the same not supported by substantial evidence and, perforce, must fail. As correctly observed by the OCA, the available certificates of service of respondent were for the months of December 2003; February to June 2004; and October to December 2004. Although these certifications were not properly accomplished by respondent, as she failed to indicate the case numbers and titles of the cases submitted for decision that she was asking for extension of time to decide, the monthly report of cases includes the subject criminal cases as among those submitted for decision but not yet decided. On the imputation that the decision rendered by respondent was unjust, we find it unnecessary to delve into due to the fact that the questioned decision is the subject of an appeal with the CA and is best left to the sound judgment of the latter, it being judicial in nature. [16] On the allegation that respondent rendered a decision promulgated a day ahead of the hearing of the Motion to Dismiss, implying that respondent purposely did so in order to preempt the resolution of the Motion, we find the same without merit. Records show that the Motion of complainant dated January 11, 2005 was received by the RTC on January 13, 2005, [17] or three days after the Decision was finalized on January 10, 2005 and forwarded to the Office of the Clerk of Court for promulgation on January 18, 2005, thus negating the allegation of complainant that respondent purposely did so to render his Motion moot and academic. Malice or bad faith on the part of respondent is not alleged and shown by complainant. For administrative liability to attach, respondent must be shown to have been moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred or some other motive. There exists no competent evidence that respondent in disposing of the criminal cases has been moved by bad faith, dishonesty, hatred, or some other motive. Moreover, a judge enjoys the presumption of regularity in the performance of her function no less than any other public officer. The presumption of regularity of official acts may be rebutted by affirmative evidence of irregularity or failure to perform a duty. [18] The presumption, however, prevails until it is overcome by no less than clear and convincing evidence to the contrary. Thus, unless the presumption is rebutted, it becomes conclusive. [19] On the allegation that respondent merely adopted the resolution of the bail hearing and on the basis thereof convicted the accused, we find the same untenable. Section 8, Rule 114 of the Rules of Court provides, inter alia , that the evidence presented during the bail hearing shall be considered automatically reproduced at the trial. In this case, respondent expl