FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. 01-6-314-RTC
June 19, 2003 RE:
REQUEST OF JUDGE
ROBERTO S. JAVELLANA,RTC-BR. 59,
SAN
CARLOS CITY (NEGROS OCCIDENTAL)FOR
EXTENSION
OF
TIME TO DECIDE CIVIL CASESNOS.
X-98 &
RTC 363.chanrobles virtual law library
R
E S O L U
T I O N
YNARES-SANTIAGO,
J.:
On April 25, 2001, the
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a letter[1]
from Judge Roberto S. Javellana, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial
Court of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Branch 59, requesting for
an extension of time within which to decide Civil Case No. X-98
(Teodoro
Bintad, et al. vs. Celso Ocdinaria, et al.) and Civil Case No. RTC-363
(Ricardo M. Lacson, et al. vs. San Carlos Agro-Aqua Corporation, et
al.).
Judge Javellana explained that he was not able to render a decision in
these cases within the 90-day reglementary period because he presides
over
two courts, Branches 57 and 59, and he has to travel to Manila to
attend
to the administrative case filed against him.
On May 3, 2001, the
OCA required Atty. Titania A. Ledunia, the Clerk of Court of Branch 59,
to explain the circumstances of the aforementioned cases since the
reglementary
period of ninety (90) days within which to decide them have already
expired.cralaw:red
In her letter[2]
dated May 8, 2001, Atty. Leduna explained that Judge Javellana
previously
dismissed Civil Case No. X-98 but on appeal it was remanded to the
trial
court by the Court of Appeals. The case was submitted for
decision
on October 11, 2000. On the other hand, Civil Case No. RTC-363
was
submitted for decision on November 4, 2000. Atty. Leduna further added
that the delay in resolving the above-mentioned cases was due to Judge
Javellana’s policy of giving priority to criminal cases.chanrobles virtual law library
On August 8, 2001,[3]
the request of Judge Javellana for a 90-day extension within which to
decide
the two civil cases was granted. He was directed to submit to the
OCA copies of his decisions in the aforesaid cases within ten (10) days
from date of its promulgation. Judge Javellana was furthermore required
to explain, within ten (10) days from notice, why his request for an
extension
of time was made after the expiration of the 90-day period to decide
the
cases.cralaw:red
On October 3, 2001,
Judge Javellana rendered a decision[4]
in Civil Case No. RTC-363. However, it was only on March 20, 2002[5]
that he submitted a copy of the said decision to the OCA.cralaw:red
On May 13, 2002, the
OCA submitted its Memorandum, stating that Judge Javellana failed to
render
a decision in the two civil cases within the 90-day extended period
granted
by the Court. It found that while Civil Case No. RTC-363 was
submitted
for decision on November 4, 2000 and should have been decided on
February
4, 2001, Judge Javellana rendered his decision only on October 3,
2001.
Civil Case No. X-98, on the other hand, was submitted for decision on
October
11, 2000 and was due on January 11, 2001, but Judge Javellana has not
yet
submitted a copy of his decision to the OCA.cralaw:red
Hence, the OCA recommended
that the Court (1) impose on Judge Javellana a fine of Four Thousand
Pesos
(P4,000.00) for his failure to decide Civil Cases Nos. RTC-363 and X-98
within the 90-day reglementary period and for his failure to seasonably
request for additional time to resolve them; (2) order respondent judge
to submit to this Court, through the OCA, a copy of his decision in
Civil
Case No. X-98 immediately after rendition thereof; and (3) to reprimand
respondent judge for his failure to explain why he requested for an
extension
of time to decide the subject cases only after the 90-day period within
which to decide had already expired.[6]
Decision-making, among
others, is the primordial and most important duty of every member of
the
bench.[7]
Judges have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay,
for
justice delayed is justice denied. No less than our Constitution[8]
requires that a trial court judge shall resolve or decide cases within
three (3) months after they have been submitted for decision. In
addition
to this Constitutional mandate, the Code of Judicial Conduct[9]
mandates that judges shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and
decide cases within the required period. A judge should not pay mere
lip
service to the 90-day reglementary period for deciding a case.chanrobles virtual law library
Moreover, the Court,
in its aim to dispense speedy justice, is not unmindful of
circumstances
that justify the delay in the disposition of the cases assigned to
judges.
It is precisely for this reason why the Court has been sympathetic to
requests
for extensions of time within which to decide cases and resolve matters
and incidents related thereto. When a judge sees such circumstances
before
the reglementary period ends, all that is needed is to simply ask the
Court,
with the appropriate justification, for an extension of time within
which
to decide the case. Thus, a request for extension within which to
render
a decision filed beyond the 90-day reglementary period is obviously a
subterfuge
to both the constitutional edict and the Code of Judicial Conduct.cralaw:red
In the case at bar,
despite being granted the 90-day extension within which to decide the
two
civil cases, Judge Javellana failed to meet the deadline within the
extended
period. He was able to decide only Civil Case No. RTC-363 five
(5)
months after the extended period has expired and he furnished the OCA a
copy of his decision five (5) months after he rendered said
decision.
Such delay clearly contravened the directive of this Court in its
Resolution
dated August 8, 2001[10]
which directed Judge Javellana to provide the OCA a copy of his
decision
on the case after ten (10) days from rendition thereof. On the
other
hand, Judge Javellana has not rendered a decision in Civil Case No.
X-98.cralaw:red
His designation as acting
judge in another sala cannot excuse his negligence and gross
inefficiency
in failing to decide the two civil cases within the 90-day extended
period.
As pointed out by the OCA, the delay of Judge Javellana in resolving
the
two cases was not caused by heavy caseload in the two branches that he
presides. Moreover, Judge Javellana should have been more
circumspect
in monitoring the cases submitted for decision, considering that this
is
not the first time that he has been sanctioned by this Court for his
failure
to decide a case within the reglementary period prescribed by law.
Thus,
in Eliezar A. Sibayan-Joaquin v. Judge Roberto S. Javellana,[11] he was
fined two thousand (P2,000.00) pesos when he failed to decide Criminal
Case No. RTC-1150, an estafa case, within the period prescribed by law.cralaw:red
This Court has ruled
in several cases that the designation of a judge to preside over
another
sala does not justify delay in deciding a case. This is because
he
is not precluded from asking for an extension of the period within
which
to decide a case if this is necessary.[12]
Judges are called upon to manage their courts with a view to a prompt
and
convenient disposition of their business.[13]
It is therefore incumbent upon Judge Javellana to devise an efficient
system
in his courts to obviate any confusion which may adversely affect the
flow
of cases and their speedy disposition. Delay results in undermining the
people's faith in the judiciary from whom the prompt hearing of their
supplications
is anticipated and expected, and reinforces in the mind of litigants
that
the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.[14]chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent judge’s negligence
and gross inefficiency are not the only misdeeds which warrant the
corrective
intervention of the Court in this case. We likewise find reason
to
wield disciplinary sanction on respondent judge’s indifference to the
directive
of this Court. When we issued our Resolution dated August 8, 2001,[15]
granting the extension of time prayed for by respondent judge, we
further
directed him to submit to this Court, through the OCA, a copy of his
decisions
in the aforesaid cases within ten (10) days from date of its
promulgation
and explain, within ten (10) days from notice of our resolution, why
his
request for an extension of time was made only after the 90-day period
to decide the cases has expired. However, record shows that Civil Case
No. RTC-363 was decided on October 3, 2001 but it took respondent
judge five (5) months from date of its promulgation to furnish us a
copy
of the said decision. He likewise failed to render a decision in
Civil Case No. X-98. Worse, he also failed to submit an
explanation
why he filed his request for
extension
beyond the 90-day reglementary period. The
indifference
exhibited by respondent judge constrains us to impose upon him stiffer
sanctions than those recommended by the OCA.cralaw:red
In Corazon Guerrero
v. Judge Marcial M. Deray,[16]
we held that:
It is hardly necessary
to remind respondent that judges should respect the orders and
decisions
of higher tribunals, much more the Highest Tribunal of the land from
which
all other courts should take their bearings. A resolution of the
Supreme
Court is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be
complied
with partially, inadequately or selectively. If at all, this omission
not
only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in respondent’s character; it also
underscores
his disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders and directives which is
only
too deserving of reproof.cralaw:red
Thus, in one case, the
failure of respondent judge to comply with the show-cause resolutions
of
the Court was deemed "grave and serious misconduct affecting his
fitness
and worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to his office." In
Alonto-Frayna
v. Astih, we further held:
A judge who deliberately
and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of
this
Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination. It is gross
misconduct
and even outright disrespect for this Court for respondent to exhibit
indifference
to the resolutions requiring him to comment on the accusations
contained
in the complaint against him.cralaw:red
In other words, indifference
or defiance to the Court’s orders or resolutions may be punished with
dismissal,
suspension or fine as warranted by the circumstances. (Emphasis ours;
Citations
omitted)
In sum, Judge Javellana
is guilty of gross inefficiency[17]
and negligence for his undue delay in resolving the two civil cases
within
the extended 90-day period. He is likewise guilty of gross
misconduct aggravated by his lack of candor and his callous disregard
of
this Court’s previous sanction and Resolution dated August 8,
2001.
Considering the circumstances of this case, we hold that the penalty of
fine in the amount of P20,000.00 is commensurate to respondent Judge’s
infractions.chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, in view of
the foregoing, Judge Roberto S. Javellana of the Regional Trial Court
of
San Carlos City (Negros Occidental), Branch 57 is found GUILTY of gross
inefficiency, negligence and delay in the rendition of judgments and
gross
misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service.
Accordingly,
he is ordered to pay a FINE in the amount of P20,000.00. He is
STERNLY
WARNED that commission of similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman),
Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, p. 4.
[2]
Id. at 3.
[3]
Id. at 5-6.
[4]
Id. at 8-22.
[5]
Id. at 7.
[6]
Id. at 23-26.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Re: Problem of Delays in Cases before the Sandiganbayan, A.M. No.
00-8-05-SC,
31 January 2002.
[8]
Section 15(1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.
[9]
Canon 3, Rule 3.05.
[10]
Rollo, pp. 5-6.chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601, 13 November 2001, 368 SCRA 503.
[12]
Tierra Firma Estate and Development Corporation v. Judge Edison F.
Quintin,
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1434, 2 July 2002, citing Echaves v. Fernandez, A.M.
No.
RTJ-00-1596, 19 February 2002; Montes v. Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1627,
17 April 2001, 356 SCRA 539; Gallego v. Doronilla, A.M. No.
MTJ-00-1278,
26 June 2000, 334 SCRA 339; Balayo v. Buban, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-99-1477,
9 September 1999, 314 SCRA 16.
[13]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Marcelino L. Sayo, Jr., A.M.
Nos. RTJ-00-1587 & RTJ-00-1540, 7 May 2002.
[14]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Silverio Q. Castillo, A.M.
No.
RTJ-01-1634, 25 October 2001, 368 SCRA 189, 193, citing Casia v.
Gestopa,
Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-99-1181, 11 August 1999, 312 SCRA 204.chanrobles virtual law library
[15]
Rollo, pp. 5-6.
[16]
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, 10 December 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[17]
Corazon Guerrero v. Judge Marcail M. Deray, supra; Bontuyan v. Judge
Gaudioso
D. Villarin, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1718, 26 August 2002, citing Re: Report on
the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Pending Cases in MTCC, Br.
1 and RTC, Br. 57, Lucena City, A.M. No. 96-7-257-RTC, 2 December 1999,
319 SCRA 507; Lambino v. De Vera, 341 Phil. 62 (1997); Alfonso-Cortes
v.
Maglalang, A.M. No. RTJ-88-170, 8 November 1993, 227 SCRA 482. |