A.M. No. RTJ-14-2378 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3629-RTJ] - IMELDA P. YU, v. COMPLAINANT, JUDGE DECOROSO M. TURLA, Respondent.

Before the Court is the Memorandum¹ dated November 20, 2019 of Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez requesting clarification as to the penalty imposed upon Presiding Judge Decoroso M. Turla (Judge Turla), Branch 21, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Laoang, Northern Samar in the Court's Resolution² dated July 30, 2019 in A.M. No. RTJ-14-2378 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 11-3629-RTJ].

The Antecedents
This case is rooted on a verified Letter-Complaint³ dated April 4, 2011 filed by complainant Imelda P. Yu (Imelda) against Judge Turla for grave misconduct, gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, violation of the provisions of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and violation of Section 3(e) of Republic Act No. 3019, or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Imelda is the private complainant and aunt of Teresita Y. Tan and Romeo Y. Tan, the accused in Criminal Case No. 4503 entitled "People of the Philippines v. Teresita Y Tan and Romeo Y. Tan," for Robbery with Force Upon Things under Article 299 of the Revised Penal Code which was raffled to the sala of Judge Turla.⁴

In the Resolution dated July 30, 2019, the Court found Judge Turla administratively liable for:cralawred

(1)	gross ignorance of the law for his failure to- issue warrants of arrest in Criminal Case No. 4503 despite the finding of probable cause against the accused therein, in violation of Section 5(a) Rule 112 of the Rules of Court;5
(2)	undue delay in rendering orders for having incurred unjustifiable delay in resolving the motions filed by Imelda and the accused in Criminal Case No. 4503. in breach of Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution as well as Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 5, Canon 6 of the Ntvv Code of Judicial Conduct;6 and
(3)	simple misconduct for communicating with Imelda while Criminal Case No. 4503 was pending before his court.7

Accordingly, the Court deemed it proper to reprimand Judge Turla for his actions, with a stern warning that the commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severity, viz.:cralawred

As for the penalty, the Court notes that this h the first time that Judge Turla hac been the subject of an administrative complaint.

Considering the absence of bad faith and that this will be his first offense, the Court deems it proper to issue a reprimand against Judge Turla with a stern warning that the commission of similar acts shall be dealt with more severity.⁸ (Italics supplied.)

This notwithstanding, the fallo of the Resoludon reads:cralawred

WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS Judge Decoroso M. Turla, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Laoang, Northern Samar, GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law, undue delay in-rendering orders and simple misconduct; and issues a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severity.

Let a copy of this Decision [sic] be attached to the personnel records of Juoge Decoroso M. Turla in the office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator.

SO ORDERED.⁹

Given the apparent discrepancy between the body and fallo of the Resolution, the Office of the Court Administrator now seeks clarification as to the penalty to be imposed against Judge Turla.

The Court's Ruling
In cases where there is a conflict between the fallo, or the dispositive part, and the body of a decision, the fallo is generally controlling on the theory that it is the final order which becomes the subject of execution ¹⁰ while the body of the decision merely contains the ratio decidendi for the disposition.¹¹ In other Vvords, the execution of a decision must conform to that which is ordained or decreed in the fallo; otherwise, the order of execution has pro-tan 'o no validity.¹²

It should be stressed, however, that this rule is not absolute. "The only exception when the body of a decision prevails over the fallo is when the inevitable. conclusion from the former is that there was a glaring error in the latter, in which case the body of the decision will prevail."¹³ In such cases, the clerical error, mistake, or omission in the fallo may be corrected or supplied even after the judgment has been entered to make it conform with the body of the decision.¹⁴

Here, a careful perusal of the Resolution clearly reveals a clerical error in the fallo as to the penalty to be imposed upon Judge Turla. After all, the Court, in no uncertain terms, resolved to impose the penalty of reprimand against Judge Turla for his actions, taking into account the absence of bad faith on his part and his being a first-time offender.

Given these circumstances, the Court finds that this case easily falls under the exception rather than the general rule and clarifies that Judge Turla was indeed meted out with the penally of reprimand, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severity in the Resolution dated July 30, 2019.

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby AMENDS the fallo in its Resolution dated Juh 30, 2019 to read as follows:cralawred

"WHEREFORE, Judge Decoroso M-. Turla,. Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Laoang, Northern Samar, is hereby REPRIMANDED for gross ignorance of the law, undue delay in rendering orders, and simple misconduct, and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

Let a copy of this Resolution be attached to the personnel records of Judge Decoroso M. Turla in the office of the Administrative Services, Office of the Court Administrator.

SO ORDERED."

SO ORDERED.

Gesmundo, (Chairperson), Carandang, and Lopez, JJ., concur.
Gaerlan,^* J., On offcial leave.

Endnotes:

---

^** On official leave.

¹Rollo, pp. 367-368.

²Id at 361-366.

³Id at 1-2.

⁴Id. at 35i.

⁵Id. at 364.

⁶Id

⁷Id at 365.

⁸Id

⁹Id at 365-366.

¹⁰Cobarrubias v. People, 612 Phil. 984, 996 (2009).

¹¹PH Credit Corporation v. Court of Appeals, 421 Phil. 821, 833 (2000.

¹²Florentino v Rivera, 515 Phil. 494, 503 (2006), citing Jose Clavano, Inc. v. Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board, 428 Phil. 208, 223 (2002;.

¹³Id. at 834, citing Rosales v. Court of Appeals., 405 Phil. 638, 655 (2001).

¹⁴ See Spouses Rebuldela v. Intermediate Appellate Court, 239 Phil. 437, 494 (1987).