SECOND DIVISION
RE:
JUDICIAL
AUDIT
REPORT CONDUCTED
IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,BRANCH
17, KIDAPAWAN
CITY
A.M.
No.
02-8-471-RTC
March 14, 2003 JUDGE
RODOLFO M.
SERRANO,REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 17, KIDAPAWAN
CITY, NORTH COTABATO,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I
O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Near the date of his retirement
on August 20, 2002, an audit and physical inventory of the cases in the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato, of
which
Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano was presiding judge, was made. Based on
the records of the RTC, Branch 17 of Kidapawan City, the audit showed
that
he had a total caseload of 453 cases, consisting of 310 criminal cases
and 143 civil cases. The nature of the cases, their status, and
their
number are as follows:
TOTAL
CASE STATUS
OF
NUMBER
CRIMINAL
CIVIL
PROCEEDINGS
OF CASES
CASES
CASES
I. Submitted for
decision
97
72
25chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
II. Submitted for
resolution
21
10
11
III. On trial/set for
hearing
182
121
61
IV. For ex-parte
proceedings
3
--
3
V. For
pre-trial
49
35
14
VI. For arraignment
of
accused
49
49
--
VII. With matter for
compliance
23
12
11
VIII. With no action
taken
since
3
0
3
filing
IX. Held in
abeyance
2
1
1
X.
Warrants/Subpoenas/Summons
13
2
11
XI. For
reinvestigation
6
6
--
XII.
Decided/Dismissed/Terminated
4
2
2
XIII. For writ of
execution
1
--
1
Total
453
310
143
To the 97 cases submitted
for decision, eight more were added, bringing the total number of cases
submitted for decision to 105. The eight cases are as follows:
DATE
DUE
SUBMITTED DATE OF
CASE
NUMBER
FOR
DECISION REMARKS
DECISION
CIVIL CASES:
1.
97-32
04-23-02
07-22-02
Within
2.
2002-08
05-21-02
08-19-02
Within
3.
2001-11
11-20-01
02-18-02
Beyond
4.
2001-17
01-10-02
04-10-02
Beyond
5. MISC
38-2001
07-09-02
10-07-02
Submitted before
Judge Narisma;
Within
6. MISC
29-2001
06-24-02
09-22-02
Submitted before
Judge Narisma;
Within
7. SP
24-2000
07-01-02
09-29-02
Submitted before
Judge Narisma;
Within
8. SP
40-2000
06-26-02
09-24-02
Submitted before
Judge Narisma;
Within
Still later, 12 additional
cases with pending incidents were submitted for resolution:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
DATE
SUBMITTED
DUE
CASE
FOR
DATE OF REMARKS
NUMBER
DECISION
DECISION
CRIMINAL CASES:
1.
171-01
02-18-02
05-19-02
Beyond
2.
131-97
03-21-01
06-19-01
Beyondchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3.
132-97
03-21-01
06-19-01
Beyond
4.
43-96
06-29-99
09-27-99
Beyondchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
CIVIL CASES:
5.
02-99
11-09-00
02-07-01
Beyond
6.
2001-10
05-17-02
08-15-02
Within
7.
611
02-10-02
05-11-02
Beyond
8.
2000-27
04-04-02
07-02-02
Beyond
9.
97-17
09-21-00
12-20-00
Beyond
10.
98-01
06-26-00
09-24-00
Beyond
11.
848
08-29-01
11-27-01
Beyond
12. SP
50-2000
06-28-02
09-26-02
Submitted before Judge Narisma;Within
The audit team found
that the following cases had not been acted upon since they were
filed:
Criminal Case Nos. 220-01, 105-02, 106-02, 107-02, 108-02, 112-02,
122-02,
and 124-02, Special Proceedings Case Nos. 22-02, 19-02, and 19-99, and
Miscellaneous Case Nos. 03-2002, 06-2002, 14-2002, 17-2002, 18-2002,
and
19-2002; and that in the meantime, Civil Case Nos. 98-17, 27-99,
2001-14,
2001-15, and SC 01-2001 may be ordered archived pursuant to the
guidelines
set forth in Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92, as amended, dated June
21, 1993.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Thus, in its initial
audit and inventory of the cases in the RTC, Branch 17, the judicial
audit
team found that Judge Serrano had failed to decide 150 cases and to
resolve
pending incidents/motions in 25 cases. In its follow-up audit
conducted
on July 10, 2002, the team found that of the 150 cases submitted for
decision,
Judge Serrano was able to decide only 52 cases, thus leaving 98
undecided
cases and pending incidents in about 14 cases. After his retirement on
August 20, 2002, the number of undecided cases was reduced to 82, while
the number of cases with pending incidents was reduced to 21. The
details of the report were as follows:
150 cases - reported
by the previous audit team as submitted for decisionchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
less:
2 cases - found by the present team to be still on the trial stage
less:
52 cases - already decided
less:
19 cases - decided after follow-up audit
add:
1 case - found to be already submitted for decision not with motion
submitted
for resolution
add:
4 cases - additional cases submitted for decision (2 cases still within
the mandatory period as of audit date)
________
82 cases - still to be decided
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
25 cases - reported by the previous audit team as with motion submitted
for resolution
less:
1 case - found to be already submitted for decision not with
motion
submitted for resolution
less:
14 cases - already resolved
add: 11
cases - additional cases with motion submitted for resolution, all
beyond
the mandatory period
__________
21 cases - with motions still to be resolved
Earlier, Judge Rogelio
R. Narisma of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Kidapawan City, was
designated Assisting Judge in the RTC, Branch 17 of Kidapawan City to
try
and decide the pending and newly filed cases in that court. Judge
Serrano
was directed to stop trying cases in his court and instead concentrate
on resolving all cases submitted to him for decision before his
retirement
on August 20, 2002.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In view of the report,
dated August 19, 2002, submitted by the judicial audit team, the Court
directed Judge Serrano to explain why he failed to decide all cases and
resolve all motions submitted to him for decision and/or resolution
during
the previous audit conducted. Meanwhile, the amount of P100,000.00 was
withheld from his retirement benefits to answer for any administrative
liability which may be imposed on him. Judge Narisma, Assisting
Judge
of Branch 17, was directed to: (a) inform this Court whether or not
Civil
Case No. 40-2000 [should be Special Proceedings Case No. 40-2000],
Special
Proceedings Case No. 24-2000, and Miscellaneous Case Nos. 29-2001 and
38-2001
had been decided and the pending incident in Special Proceedings Case
No.
50-2000 resolved within the mandatory period; and (b) immediately take
appropriate action on the cases which had not been acted upon since
their
filing[2]
and on the other cases,[3]
pursuant to Adm. Circ. No. 7-A-92, dated June 21, 1993, as
amended.cralaw:red
Judge Serrano explained
that his failure to decide and resolve the remaining cases was due to
the
fact that he developed cirrhosis of the liver in May 2001 and had been
advised by his physician to rest for a month. In an earlier
letter,
dated August 29, 2001, he claimed that as his retirement was
approaching,
he had requested the OCA to exempt him from the regular raffle of cases
and to relieve him from hearing heinous crime cases so that he could
concentrate
on cases submitted thus far for decision, but, although his request was
granted, the grant was made only on June 5, 2002, just less than three
(3) months before his retirement on August 20, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part, Judge
Narisma submitted a report, dated October 18, 2002, informing the Court
on the latest action taken or the status of the cases assigned to him.cralaw:red
The matters were referred
to the Office of the Court Administrator which, on February 6, 2003,
submitted
a memorandum recommending the following:
1.
The letter-report dated 18 October 2002 of Acting Presiding Judge
Rogelio
R. Narisma, RTC, Branch 17, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato, be
considered
as a SUFFICIENT COMPLIANCE with the Court's resolution under par. (c)
dated
11 September 2002 as far as the following cases are concerned:
Civil
Case No. 40-2000 [should be Special Proceedings Case No. 40-2000],
Special
Proceedings Case No. 24-2000, Miscellaneous Case Nos. 29-2001 and
38-2001,
Special Proceedings Case No. 50-2000, Criminal Case Nos. 220-01,
105-02,
106-02, 107-02, 108-02, 122-02, and 124-02, Special Proceedings Case
Nos.
22-02 and 19-02, Miscellaneous Case Nos. 03-2002, 06-2002, 14-2002,
17-2002
and 18-2002, Civil Case Nos. 98-17, 27-99, 2001-15 and SC-01-2001;
2.
Acting Presiding Judge Rogelio R. Narisma, RTC, Branch 17, Kidapawan
City,
North Cotabato, be DIRECTED to inform the Honorable Court thru the
Office
of the Court Administrator within ten (10) days from receipt of notice
the latest action or status of the following cases, to wit: Special
Proceedings
Case No. 19-99, Miscellaneous Case No. 19-2002 and Civil Case No.
2001-14;
3.
Retired Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano, RTC, Branch 17, Kidapawan City,
North Cotabato, be found administratively liable for delay and neglect
of duty and be FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00),
to be DEDUCTED from the withheld amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00)
from his retirement benefits;
4.
The Financial Management Office, OCA, be DIRECTED to release the
remaining
balance of the retirement benefits of Retired Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano,
same court, unless there exists another lawful cause for withholding
them.cralaw:red
Except as to the four
(4) cases[4]
which Judge Narisma omitted from his report of October 18,
2002, the Court, in its resolution of February 26, 2003, adopted the
recommendation
of the OCA that the said report on the status of the cases[5]
assigned to him be considered sufficient compliance with the resolution
of September 11, 2002. Additionally, Judge Narisma was also
directed
to inform the Court, through the OCA, of the status of the
aforementioned
four (4) cases.cralaw:red
As to the recommendation
of the OCA that Judge Serrano be found administratively liable for
delay
and neglect of duty and fined in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos
(P5,000.00),
the Court finds the same to be well taken.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Aware of the caseload
of judges, this Court has viewed with understanding requests for
extension
made by judges. Hence, should a judge find himself unable to decide
cases
within the 90-day period for doing so, he can ask for an extension of
time
for deciding the same. Such requests are generally granted.[6]
In the case at bar, Judge Serrano does not dispute the findings of the
audit team that he failed to decide several criminal and civil cases
submitted
to him for decision or resolution. His excuse, that although his
request to be relieved of the raffle of cases so that he could
concentrate
on cases submitted for decision was granted the grant came just less
than
three months before his retirement, is unsatisfactory. He could
have
asked for an extension of time to decide the cases and resolve matters
pending before his sala, but he did not.cralaw:red
In Re: Cases Left
Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr., we stated:[7]
The Court finds deserving
of due consideration, the explanation of respondent Judge for leaving
ten
(10) undecided cases before his retirement from the service.
Serious
illness may justify the inability of a judge to perform his official
duties
and functions. But then, the Court has to enforce what is
required
by law and to impose a reasonable punishment for a violation
thereof.
The members of the judiciary have the sworn duty to administer justice
without undue delay. Failure to decide cases within the periods
fixed
by law constitutes a neglect of duty, which warrants the imposition of
administrative sanctions. When he was hindered by a grave
malignancy,
it was incumbent upon the respondent Judge to request this Court,
through
the Office of the Court Administrator, for additional time to decide
the
cases which he could not seasonably act upon and decide. For
failing
to do so, respondent Judge has to suffer the consequences of his
omission.cralaw:red
In Office of the Court
Administrator v. Quizon, it was held:[8]
While the Court is sympathetic
to the plight of judges, it cannot be overemphasized that the public's
faith and confidence in the judicial system is at stake in cases
involving
delays in the disposition of cases. No less than the Constitution
mandates judges to decide cases with deliberate dispatch. Canon
3,
Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of
the Court's business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods.
For it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied.
Procrastination
among members of the judiciary in rendering decisions and acting upon
cases
before them not only causes great injustice to the parties involved but
also invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge.cralaw:red
Admittedly, Judge Serrano's
illness had adversely affected the performance of his
duties.
Nonetheless, his illness should not be an excuse for his failure to
render
the corresponding decisions or resolutions within the prescribed period
as he could have sought an extension to do so. He cannot
therefore
seek exoneration for his failure to decide cases.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The OCA recommends a
fine of P5,000.00 in this case. In Office of the Court
Administrator
v. Quizon,[9]
the Court considered as attenuating circumstances the fact that the
judge
was seriously ill (end stage renal disease secondary to
nephrosclerosis)
and that his caseload was heavy and reduced the fine recommended by the
OCA from P20,000.00 to P5,000.00. In Re: Report on the Judicial
Audit
Conducted in the RTC-Br. 220, Quezon City,[10]
the OCA recommended that the judge be fined P10,000.00 for his failure
to take appropriate actions to reduce the backlog of the cases assigned
to him before his retirement. The Court, however, considered as
mitigating
circumstances the failing health of the judge, who had undergone
surgical
operations for cancer of the colon and the urinary bladder and later
chemotherapy
and linear accelerator therapy, and the personal tragedies (three
members
of his family died) that befell him. The fine was reduced to
P5,000.00.
In Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr.,[11]
serious illness (acute prostate ailment) justified the inability of
respondent
judge to decide before his retirement seven criminal cases and three
civil
cases within the 90-day reglementary period. The recommended fine of
P5,000.00
by the OCA was reduced to P2,000.00 by the Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano is adjudged administratively liable for the
delay
in deciding the subject cases and is FINED in the amount of Five
Thousand
Pesos (P5,000.00), the same amount to be deducted from the
retirement
benefits due him.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J.,
(Chairman),
Quisumbing, Austria-Martinez, and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Pursuant to SC Adm. Order No. 75-2002 dated June 5, 2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Criminal Case Nos. 220-01, 105-02, 106-02, 107-02, 108-02, 112-02,
122-02,
and 124-02, Special Proceedings Case Nos. 22-02, 19-02, and 19-99, and
Miscellaneous Case Nos. 03-2002, 06-2002, 14-2002, 17-2002, 18-2002,
and
19-2002.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Civil Case Nos. 98-17, 27-99, 2001-14, 2001-15, and SC 01-2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Special Proceedings Case No. 19-99, Miscellaneous Case No.
19-2002,
Civil Case No. 2001-14, and Criminal Case No. 112-02.
[5]
Civil Case No. 40-2000 [should be Special Proceedings Case No.
40-2000],
Special Proceedings Case No. 24-2000, Miscellaneous Case Nos. 29-2001
and
38-2001, Special Proceedings Case No. 50-2000, Criminal Case Nos.
220-01,
105-02, 106-02, 107-02, 108-02, 122-02, and 124-02, Special Proceedings
Case Nos. 22-02 and 19-02, Miscellaneous Case Nos. 03-2002, 06-2002,
14-2002,
17-2002, and 18-2002, Civil Case Nos. 98-17, 27-99, 2001-15, and
SC-01-2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC-Branches 61 & 63,
Quezon;
MTC, Calauag, Quezon & Tagkawayan, Quezon, 328 SCRA 543 (2000).
[7]
306 SCRA 50, 53-54 (1999).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
A.M. No. RTJ-01-1636, February 13, 2002.
[9]
Id.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
360 SCRA 242 (2001).
[11]
306 SCRA 50 (1999). |