SECOND DIVISION
RE:
REPORT ON THE
JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED
IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,BRANCHES 3, 5, 7,
60 AND 61, BAGUIO CITY.chanrobles virtual law library
A.M.
No.
02-9-568-RTC
February 11, 2004
R
E S O L U
T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
J.:cralaw:red
In Administrative Matter
OCA IPI No. 02-1435-RTJ which is the complaint of Judge Ruben Ayson
against
the Regional Trial Court Judges of Baguio City, the Court En Banc
issued
a Resolution dated March 19, 2002, forming a team to conduct judicial
audit
and physical inventory of pending cases, including cases submitted for
decision and/or cases with motions for resolution in all the Branches
of
the Regional Trial Court, Baguio City.cralaw:red
In a Memorandum dated
September 17, 2002, filed with the Court and docketed as A.M. No.
02-9-568-RTC,
the herein administrative matter, Deputy Court Administrator
Christopher
O. Lock submitted the report of the audit team and endorsed the team’s
recommendation.chanrobles virtual law library
Thus, on December 16,
2002, the Second Division of this Court issued the following Resolution:[1]
Adm. Matter No. 02-9-568-RTC
(Re: Reports on the judicial audit conducted in the Regional Trial
Court,
Branches 3, 5, 7, 60 and 61 Baguio City). – Considering the judicial
audit
and physical inventory of cases in all branches of the RTC, Baguio
City,
in compliance with the resolution of the Court En Banc dated 19 March
2002
in A.M. No. OCA IPI 02-1435-RTC, the Court Resolves, upon
recommendation
of Deputy Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock in his Memorandum
dated
17 September 2002, to:
BRANCH 3
I. DIRECT Judge Fernando
Vil Pamintuan to: (a) to ACT IMMEDIATELY and/or INFORM this Court,
through
the Office of the Court Administrator, of the present status of the
following
cases which from the time of filing/raffle thereof have not been acted
upon for a considerable period, namely: Criminal Case Nos. 17634,
17636, 2000 and Civil Case Nos. 5199, 4542, 4984, LRC 1212, LRC 1206
and
LRC 1041, as well as to explain the cause of delay in the movement of
the
cases within ten (10) days from notice; (b) to IMMEDIATELY TAKE the
necessary
steps for the disposition of the following cases, in accordance with
Circular
No. 7-A-92 (Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases) dated June 21, 1993,
to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 19480, 19481, 19482, 19483, 19484, 19500,
19554,
19578, 18954, 18955 and 18800;
II. DIRECT the Branch
Clerk of Court/Officer-in-Charge, to INFORM this Court through the
Office
of the Court Administrator within ten (10) days from notice of the
present
status of the following: (a) cases which were submitted for decision
but
still within the 90-day reglementary period when the judicial audit was
conducted, namely Crim. Case Nos. 17182, 17792, 18030, 18130, 18131,
18132,
18148, 18149 and Civil Case Nos. 1168, 1674, 4347, 4373, 5028 and 5205;
and (b) cases with pending matters and incidents for resolution but
also
within the 90-day reglementary period when the judicial audit was
conducted
namely, Civil Case Nos. 4741, 4320, 4880, 4735 and LRC 1050.cralaw:red
BRANCH 5
I. DIRECT Judge Antonio
M. Esteves: (a) to EXPAIN within ten (10) days from notice why he
should
not be administratively penalized for not deciding/resolving the
following
cases submitted for decision or with pending incidents/matters for
resolution
within the reglementary period provided by law, namely: Crim. Case Nos.
13490, 16667, 16290, 16851, 168552, 15667, 19278, 19398, 17123, Civil
Case
Nos. 5012, 4770, 4269 and 1037; (b) to ACT IMMEDIATELY on the following
cases which are ripe for disposition pursuant to Circ. No. 7-A-92,
dated
21 June 1992, namely, Crim. Case Nos. 19492, 19493, 19496, 19334,
19341,
19362, 19363, 19386, 19400, 19430, 19460, and 19479; (c) to EXPLAIN
within
ten (10) days from notice hereof why the following cases were either
not
active or were not set for hearing, despite the lapse of considerable
length
of time, namely, Crim. Case Nos. 17128 and 18068, Civil Case Nos. 5170,
5209, 4822, 4630, 4596, 4967, 4989, 4925, 4614, 4586, 4468, 5140, SP
1012,
SP 187, SP 380, SP 3825 and LRC-1166.chanrobles virtual law library
II. DIRECT Branch Clerk
of Court Nelia A. Amansec to INFORM this Court, through the Office of
the
Court Administrator, within ten (10) days from notice of the present
status
of the following cases with pending matter or incidents for resolution
but still within the ninety (90)-day reglementary period when the
judicial
audit was conducted, namely: Crim. Case Nos. 19994 and 19995, Civil
Case
Nos. 5142, 5112, 5125, 5121, 5069, 4959, 4590, 4591, 4730, 4269, 1037,
3732, 3592, 4878, 4941, 4922 and 4755.cralaw:red
BRANCH 7
I. DIRECT Judge Clarence
J. Villanueva to: (a) EXPLAIN why he should no be administratively
penalized
for his failure to decide within the reglementary period prescribed by
law, the following cases, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 15497, 15620,
15621,
15668, 15728, 15739, 16525, 16526, 16829, 17127, 17686, 17751, 17917,
19348,
19349 and Civil Case Nos. 4947, 5059; (b) EXPLAIN why he should not be
administratively penalized for his failure to resolve within the
reglementary
period prescribed by law, the pending motions/incidents in Civil Case
Nos.
4491 and 4576; (c) INFORM this Court, through the Office of the Court
Administrator,
within ten (10) days from notice of the present status of the following
cases where no action had been taken despite the lapse of a
considerable
length of time and to explain why he should not be held
administratively
accountable for such inaction, namely: Crim. Case Nos. 17637 and 19835
and Civil Case Nos. 1202, 1208, 2586, 3259, 3832, 4953, 4996, 5023,
5194,
SP-432 and SP-151; (d) TAKE proper action on the following cases which
are ripe for disposition pursuant to Administrative Circ. No. 7-A-92,
viz:
Crim. Case Nos. 17843, 19547, 19559, 19590, 19600 and 19613 and Civil
Case
No. 4980.cralaw:red
II. DIRECT Ms. Susan
U. Bito, Officer-in-Charge, to INFORM this Court through the Office of
the Court Administrator: (a) whether the decisions in Crim. Case Nos.
13994
and 16928 have already been promulgated; (b) of the present status of
the
following cases which were submitted for decision but still within the
ninety (90) day reglementary period when the audit was conducted, viz:
Crim. Case Nos. 4825, 16860, 17952, 19692 and Civil Case Nos. 1159,
2597,
3983, 4490, 4647, 4649, 4800, 4818, 4896, 5115, 5145; and (c) the
present
status of the following cases which have pending motions/incidents for
resolution but still within the ninety (90)-day reglementary period
when
the audit was conducted, viz: Crim. Case Nos. 17930 and 19693 and Civil
Case Nos. 1423, 4869, 5045, 5054, 5062, 5090, 5165, SP-788 and 445
(3-2000);chanrobles virtual law library
BRANCH 60
I. DIRECT Judge Edilberto
Claraval to: (a) EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice why he should
not be administratively penalized for his failure to decide Crim. Case
Nos. 17199 and 1570, within the reglementary period provided by law;
(b)
INFORM this Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator,
within
ten (10) days from notice, of the present status of the following cases
where no action had been taken despite the lapse of considerable length
of time and to explain why he should not be held administratively
accountable
for such inaction, namely: Crim. Case Nos. 17327, 5168, 5189 and 5203;
(c) TAKE proper action on the following cases which are ripe for
disposition
pursuant to Circ. No. 7-A-92 dated 21 June 1992, namely, Crim. Case No.
17327 Civil Case Nos. 5168, 5189 and 5203; and (d) EXPLAIN why no
formal
orders were issued on the action taken on motions filed by parties in
Civil
Case Nos. 5037, 5107, 9078, 4907, 5051 and 5128, and SP Nos. 4845, 5116
and 5073.cralaw:red
II. DIRECT Branch Clerk
of Court Remedios Baldfras-Reyes, to: (a) INFORM this Court, through
the
Office of the Court Administrator, within ten (10) days from notice
whether
the decisions in the following cases have already been promulgated,
namely,
Crim. Case Nos. 15693, 15694, 18158, 18310 to 18316; (b) INFORM this
Court,
through the Office of the Court Administrator, within ten (10) days
from
notice of the present status of the following cases which were
submitted
for decision but still within the reglementary period when the judicial
audit was conducted to wit: Crim. Case Nos. 19382, 18648, 18649, 18435,
18158, 15693, 15694, 18310, 18311, 18312, 18313, 18314, 18315, 18316,
18055
and 18435, Civil Case Nos. 5060, 4376, 4377, 4385, 4386, 4388, 4395,
4396,
4397, 4398, 4403, 4407, 4433, 4421, 4429, 4432, 4437, 4523, 4651, 4562,
4808, 4247, 4871, 5080, 4668, 2863, 4414; (c) INFORM this Court,
through
the office of the Court Administrator, within ten (10) days from notice
of the present status of the following cases which have pending
matters/incidents
for resolution but still within the ninety (90)-day period when the
audit
was conducted, namely: Crim. Case Nos. 19915, 19427 and Civil Case Nos.
4907 and 4629; and (d) EXPLAIN why Criminal Case Nos. 16545-49
originally
docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 97-6949-53 and raffled to Br. 4 of MeTC,
Baguio City, were docketed and transferred to Br. 60 prior to their
transfer
to the MeTC of Muntinlupa City per AM-99-1-14-MTCC.cralaw:red
BRANCH 61
I. DIRECT Judge Antonio
C. Reyes to: (a) to EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice why he
should
not be administratively penalized for his failure to resolve within the
ninety (90)-day reglementary period the following cases, to wit: Civil
Case Nos. 4932, 4710, 4520 and 4547; (b) INFORM this Court through the
Office of the Court Administrator, of the causes for the delay in the
movement
of some fifty-three (53) cases which have not been acted upon or have
no
further action or setting in the court calendar despite the lapse of
considerable
length of time, and EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice why he
should
not be held administratively accountable for such inaction, to wit:
Criminal
Case Nos. 18133, 18134, 16292, 16326, 18937, 18718, 18719, 19033,
19410,
19411, 18553, 18554, 17966, 17967, 18526, 18527, 18636, 18720, 19557,
19737,
19738, 19739, 18936, 19499, 18476, 18477, 14520, 18665, 17945, 17946,
17975,
Civil Case Nos. 4807, 4919, 2107, 1784, 2123, 3191, 3538, 3598, 3127,
4278,
4053, 4115, 4553, 5110, 5122, 4929, 4726, 3766, 4418, 5167, 4427 and
LRC
No. 1061; and (c) EXPLAIN why he does not issue formal orders when
setting
the case for hearing as well as on actions taken on the motions filed
by
the parties, particularly in Criminal Case Nos. 15742-43, 17796-97 and
17965.cralaw:red
II. DIRECT Branch Clerk
of Court Mayflor L. Heo to: (a) INFORM this Court, through the Office
of
the Court Administrator, within ten (10) days from notice of the
present
status of Crim. Case No.18414, Civil Case Nos. 4059, 4219 and 4262,
which
cases were submitted for decision but were still within the ninety
(90)-day
reglementary period when the audit was conducted; (b) INFORM this
Court,
through the office of the Court Administrator, within ten (10) days
from
notice of the present status of the following cases which, when the
judicial
audit was conducted, have pending motions or incidents for resolution
but
still within the ninety (90)-day reglementary period, namely, Criminal
Case Nos. 18421, 15742, 15743, 17965, 16551, 16552, 4365, 5026, 5135
and
SP 884; (c) strictly COMPLY with the prescribed dress code pursuant to
CSC Memorandum Circular No. 19 S 2000 (Revised Dress Code Prescribed
for
all Government Officials and Employees in the Workplace) and
Administrative
Circular No. 19-2001 dated 15 February 2001; and (d) EXPLAIN why, prior
to the audit, the logbook of attendance does not contain the time when
employees arrive and leave the court per 1973 Memo. Circular No. 4.chanrobles virtual law library
All the aforementioned
Judges and branch clerks of court or officers-in-charge submitted their
respective explanations or reports in compliance with the aforequoted
Resolution.
In a Memorandum[2]
dated November 19, 2003, DCA Lock submitted his evaluation thereof
together
with his findings and recommendations, to wit:
ON BRANCH 3 –
We find the letter/manifestation
of Judge Pamintuan sufficient compliance with the Resolution of the
Court.cralaw:red
However, as regards
the cases subject of directive II (a)[3]
we noted that the Clerk of Court failed to indicate in her report the
dates
when the subject cases were decided. Thus, in order for us to
determine
whether these cases were decided during the 90-day reglementary period,
Atty. Bacbac should submit to the Court, through the Court Management
Office
copies of the decisions.[4]
ON BRANCH 5 –
It is noteworthy that
of the 14 cases submitted for decision at the time of the audit, eleven
(11)[5]
were beyond the 90-day period within which to decide. Likewise,
among
the cases with pending motions or incidents for resolution which were
still
within the reglementary period to resolve at the time of the audit, the
following have been resolved beyond the 90-day period, to wit:chanrobles virtual law library
CIVIL CASES NOS.
DATE OF MOTION DUE DATE DATE RESOLVEDchanrobles virtual law library
1.
5121
02-19-02
05-19-02
10-20-02
2.
4959
04-25-02
07-25-02
12-20-02
3.
4730
02-15-02
05-15-02
06-20-02
4.
4878
05-30-02
08-30-02
11-20-02
5.
4755
04-24-02
07-24-02
13-03-02
From the foregoing,
it is evident that Judge Esteves has been remiss in his duty and
responsibility
as an officer of the court. He violated Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct requiring a judge to dispose of the Court’s
business
promptly and decide cases within the required periods.cralaw:red
Judge Esteves admitted
having failed to decide cases submitted for decision or resolution on
time
but attributed the delay to the case filed against him by Judge
Ayson.
We find such justification not sufficient to vindicate him of any
liability
for his failure to decide on time. Judge Esteves should not allow
his personal problems to interfere with his official duties and
functions.
It cannot be over emphasized that the public’s faith and confidence in
the judicial system is at such in cases involving delays in the
disposition
of cases. 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
Judge Esteves, knowing
that he could not dispose of the case on time, should have requested
for
an extension of time to decide or resolve the subject cases. The
Supreme Court has always been sympathetic to requests made by judges
for
extension of time for deciding cases and other matters and incidents
related
thereto. Hence, should a judge finds himself unable to comply
with
the 90-day requirement for deciding cases, a judge can ask for an
extension
and such request is generally granted.cralaw:red
Administrative Matter
No. 01-8-10-SC provides for a penalty of suspension from the office
without
salary and other benefits for less than one or more than three (3)
months
or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00 for the
failure of judge to decide and resolve on time. Considering that
this is the first offense of Judge Esteves, a fine in the amount of
P10,000.00
is justified.chanrobles virtual law library
Section 9 in relation
to Sec. 11 (B) Rule 140 imposes a penalty of a fine of P10,000.00 but
not
exceeding P20,000.00 for undue delay in rendering a decision or order.[6]
ON BRANCH 7 –
In addition to the 26
cases which were decided beyond the reglementary period, Judge
Villanueva
failed to decide on time the 10 cases[7]
which were submitted for decision but still within the period to decide
when the audit was conducted.cralaw:red
The reasons proferred
by Judge Clarence Villanueva for the delay in the rendition of a
decision
and in the resolution of pending motions will not exonerate him from
any
administrative liability. Judge Villanueva’s health problems
which
severely impaired his ability to cope with the pressure of his judicial
functions will only mitigate his liability for failure to decide and
resolve
cases on time. Aware of his physical adversities, Judge
Villanueva
should have asked from the Court for an extension of time to decide and
resolve cases. There is no showing in his explanation that he has
requested for an extension of time to decide the cases submitted for
decision
or resolution.cralaw:red
The Court has, time
and again, held that when circumstances arise that could render them
incapable
of seasonably acting, all that a judge should do is to request from the
Court, and justify to it, an extension of time to resolve or decide the
pending matter. The Court, sympathetic of the concerns of the
judges,
often grants such requests.cralaw:red
It must be emphasized
that the Constitution, no less, mandates that all cases or matters
filed
before all lower courts shall be decided or resolved within three
months
from the date of submission thereof. Likewise, the Code of
Judicial
Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and
expeditiously and decide cases within the period fixed by law.
Failure
to comply with the mandated periods constitutes a serious violation of
the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of
their
cases. It also undermines the people’s faith and confidence in
the
judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.
Decision
making, among other duties, is the primordial and most important duty
of
a member of the bench.chanrobles virtual law library
Thus, the failure of
Judge Villanueva to decide cases with dispatch constitutes gross
inefficiency
and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions on him.
Adm.
Matter No. 01-8-10-SC provides for a penalty of suspension from the
office
without salary and other benefits for less than one nor more than three
months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00
for
the failure of judge to decide and resolve on time. Taking into
consideration
the reasons for the delay in the disposition of the cases subject of
the
audit which mitigates Judge Villanueva’s liability, a FINE of
P10,000.00,
is reasonable.cralaw:red
ON BRANCH 60 –
Criminal Case No. 17199-R
was submitted for decision on February 2, 2002 and shall be due on May
13, 2002. Judge Claraval decided the said case beyond the 90-day
reglementary period within which to decide. While a request for
extension
to decide the same was made, said request was not mailed nor presented
to the audit team. Judge Claraval should not blame the
inefficiency
of his staff for his unfortunate predicament. A judge cannot take
refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of court
personnel.
Proper and efficient court management is as much his
responsibility.
He is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his
official
functions. Furthermore, they cannot escape administrative
liability
by pointing to lapses, absences or negligence of court personnel under
them. After all, the proper and smooth functioning of their
respective
salas is the responsibility primarily of judges and court personnel are
no different from ordinary civil serve employees, who at one time or
another
commit errors or become negligent.cralaw:red
With regard to Criminal
Case No. 1570, Judge Claraval claims that said case is not pending in
his
court. It is worthy to note that criminal cases in this branch or
in the RTC of Baguio City usually consist of five (5) digits while
civil
cases contain merely four (4) digits as can be gleaned from the
Certification
dated March 13, 2003 issued by Atty. Delilah Gonzales-Muñoz,
Clerk
of Court, OCC, Baguio City, when she stated that the latest docket
number
in civil cases as of March 13, 2003 is 5468-R and 1294-R in special
proceeding
cases. We cannot expect Judge Claraval to comment on the allged
Criminal
Case No. 1570 since there is in fact no such case in their
docket.
A perusal of the worksheet of the audit team shows that Case No. 1570
referred
to in the Resolution is Criminal Case No. 15470 as this was the only
case
number most likely being referred to. Criminal Case No. 15470
entitled
“People vs. Carino, et al.” for Frustrated Homicide was filed on
February
5, 1998. It was submitted for decision on January 10, 2002 and
was
previously set for promulgation on April 30, 2002 but was reset to May
15, 2002. The said case was no longer included in the docket
inventory
for the second semester of Branch 60 which means that Criminal Case No.
15470 was already decided and promulgated as scheduled.chanrobles virtual law library
With respect to Criminal
Case No. 17327, we find the explanation satisfactory. Said case
is
actually heard jointly with Criminal Case No. 17328. At the time
of the audit, the prosecution were given ten (10) days to submit formal
offer of evidence.cralaw:red
Again, Judge Claraval
claims that Criminal Cases Nos. 5168, 5189 and 5203 are not raffled to
the court. A scrutiny of the worksheet shows that these cases are
in fact civil cases which from the time of filing have not been acted
upon
by the court. As discussed earlier, the aforesaid cases could not
have been referred to as criminal cases because criminal cases usually
consist of five (5) digits while civil cases contain merely four (4)
digits.
In his Manifestation, Judge Claraval acknowledged the existence of the
said cases in the courts docket when he stated that the defendants in
Civil
Case No. 5168 will be presenting their last witness on April 24, 2003
and
that Civil Cases Nos. 5189 and 5203 are in the pre-trial stage.cralaw:red
Anent the cases which
are ripe for disposition pursuant to Circular No. 7-A-92 dated June 21,
1992, Judge Claraval asserts that the said cases referred to in the
Resolution
can not be archived considering that the said cases are all active
cases.cralaw:red
We have perused the
report and found typographical errors in the entries of par. (d) of
item
I of the Report. The cases with no further action were
inadvertently
cited in the said paragraph instead of the following cases which are
ripe
for archiving: Criminal Cases Nos. 19403, 17219 to 17224, 18260 to
18262,
19495, 19502 and 19537.cralaw:red
With regards to the
marginal notes of the court’s action on motions filed by the parties,
Judge
Claraval admitted having acted on ex-parte motions to reset hearings,
motion
to set case for pre-trial conference through marginal notes on the
first
page of the motions but claims that the parties were notified of the
actions
taken by the court on their motions through prepared forms. While
Judge Claraval makes such notes merely on motions to reset hearings,
this
practice should be discontinued. The practice of some lower court
judges of merely noting their orders either granting or denying motions
on the margin of the motions is inconsistent with the purpose of R.A.
No.
6031, effective August 4, 1969, to make inferior courts also courts of
record. The proceeding of said courts should be recorded in a
formal
manner.[8]
Finally, most of cases
submitted for decision which were still within the 90-day period to
decide
when the audit was conducted have been decided on time. While
Criminal
Case No. 18435 and Civil Cases Nos. 4247 and 2863 were decided beyond
the
90-day period, the delay was only for a few days.cralaw:red
Nonetheless, the Code
of Judicial Conduct decrees that a judge should administer justice
impartially
and without delay. He should be imbued with a high sense of duty
and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly
administer
justice. It need not be overemphasized that any delay in the
determination
or resolution of a case no matter how insignificant is, at the bottom
line,
delay in the administration of justice in general.cralaw:red
It is only in this regard
that Judge Claraval fell short in the discharge of his administrative
function
and duty as judge. In all other matters, Judge Claraval was able
to satisfactorily explain his side.cralaw:red
On the other hand, the
Manifestation of Atty. Remedios Baldfras-Reyes maybe considered
satisfactory
compliance with the directive of the Court.[9]
ON BRANCH 61 –chanrobles virtual law library
There is no dispute
that the pending motions/incidents in Civil Cases Nos. 4932, 4710,
4520,
and 4547 at the time of audit have not been resolved despite the lapse
of the 90-day reglementary period. The excuse that the delay in
the
resolution of the said motion was due to the failure of the Branch
Clerk
of Court to calendar the same and that he learned of the pending
incidents
only after the year end inventory, to our mind, are not sufficient
justification
for his failure to resolve said motions on time. Although we have
noted that Judge Reyes has been prompt in deciding cases and resolving
pending motions and incidents, we are rather perplexed why he failed to
monitor the aforesaid cases. His branch clerk of court could have
failed to calendar these cases but he cannot take refuge behind said
inefficiency
for his failure to act on them promptly and expeditiously. He
ought
to know the cases submitted to him for resolution and is expected to
keep
his own records of cases so that he may act on them promptly.cralaw:red
Delay in the disposition
of cases undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary,
hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch, and their
failure
to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of
administrative sanction on them.cralaw:red
Additionally, we agree
with the observation of Judge Reyes that the findings of the audit
team,
other than the cases submitted for decision and resolution, are mainly
procedural lapses in the calendaring of motions and manifestations of
party
litigants but disagrees with his argument that these matters should be
addressed to the Branch Clerk of Court. Indeed, the Branch Clerk
of Court is the administrative officer of the court primarily tasked to
monitor the movement of cases, to constantly remind the trial judge of
the status of each case and to have a checklist indicating the steps to
be taken to keep cases moving. However, as judge, he is
ultimately
responsible for ensuring that court personnel perform their tasks.cralaw:red
Judge Reyes admitted
that from January 2002 to June 2002, Atty. Heo, his branch clerk of
court,
was busy with her application for appointment as municipal trial court
judge which may have been the reason for said procedural lapses.
Knowing this, he should have assigned someone to take charge of the
daily
business of the court. Thus, he cannot altogether put the blame
on
the ineptitude of his Branch Clerk of Court.chanrobles virtual law library
It must be stressed
that a judge is charged with the administrative responsibility of
organizing
and supervising the court personnel to secure the prompt and efficient
dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high
standards
of public service and fidelity. It is the duty of the judge to
adopt
an efficient recording and filing system in his court to enable him to
monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely
disposition.cralaw:red
Likewise, while no explanation
was given with regards to the findings of the audit team that no formal
orders were issued on the action taken by the court on motions filed by
the parties, Judge Reyes should, nonetheless, be directed to refrain
from
making marginal notes of his actions on the motions of the party
litigants.cralaw:red
It needs repeating that
in Criminal Cases Nos. 17796 to 17797, the court did not issue a formal
order requiring the defense to comment on the formal offer of evidence
by the prosecution. Similarly, in Criminal Case No. 17965, the
court’s
action on the motion for reduction of bail was merely annotated on the
motion itself.cralaw:red
The practice of some
lower court judges of merely noting their orders either granting or
denying
motions on the margin of the motions is inconsistent with the purpose
of
Republic Act No. 6031, effective 4 August 1969, to make inferior courts
also courts of records.chanrobles virtual law library
In fine, albeit Judge
Reyes has been remiss in his duty to promptly resolve motions and to
monitor
cases pending before his sala, he should not however, be made entirely
answerable for these procedural lapses. Judge Reyes’s immediate
action
on the pending incidents after the mid-year inventory of cases which he
personally conducted mitigates his liability.[10]
After a careful examination
of the records, and finding the foregoing findings and recommendations
of DCA Lock to be well-taken, the Court approves and adopts the same
with
some modifications as will be discussed forthwith.cralaw:red
Judge Pamintuan was
able to satisfactorily explain the delay in the disposition of some
cases
in his sala. However, Judge Pamintuan cannot be completely
cleared
of his accountability until his Clerk of Court shall have submitted to
the court the dates when Criminal Cases Nos. 17182, 17792, 18030,
18130,
18131, 18132, 18148, 18149 and Civil Cases Nos. 1168, 1674, 4347, 4373,
5028 and 5205 referred to under paragraph II(a) of the Memorandum, have
been decided and copies of the decisions on said cases.cralaw:red
As found by DCA Lock,
Judge Esteves is guilty of rendering decisions in Criminal Cases Nos.
13490,
16667, 16290, 16851, 16852, 15667, 19278, 19398 and 17123; Civil Cases
Nos. 5012 and 4770 and resolving motions in Civil Cases Nos. 5121,
4959,
4730, 4878 and 4755 beyond the 90-day reglementary period.cralaw:red
Judge Villanueva decided
sixteen cases and not twenty-six as reported by DCA Lock beyond the
90-day
reglementary period. These are Criminal Cases Nos. 15497, 15620,
15621, 15668, 15728, 15739, 16525, 16526, 16829, 17127, 17686, 17751,
17917,
19348 and 19349; and Civil Case No. 4947. However, it has been
shown
that Judge Villanueva’s failure to cope with the deadlines for deciding
these cases was mainly due to his poor health, as he was diagnosed to
have
Pulmonary Tuberculosis, as shown by the prescriptions[11]
issued to him by Dr. Renato S. Cheng of the Lung Center of the
Philippines.
The Court considers his state of health as a mitigating circumstance,
but
as stated in DCA Lock’s Memorandum, he should request the Court to
grant
him an extension of time to decide and resolve cases before the 90-day
reglementary period shall have expired.chanrobles virtual law library
Judge Reyes is guilty
of resolving motions in Civil Cases Nos. 4932, 4710, 4520 and 4547
beyond
the 90-day reglementary period.cralaw:red
With respect to Judge
Claraval, the remaining case that is unaccounted for is Criminal Case
No.
“1570” or “15704” entitled, “People vs. Carino, et al.”
Considering
the finding of DCA Lock that the case is no longer included in the
docket
inventory of Branch 60, the Clerk of Court should be required to
certify
whether or not the decision in the case had been promulgated; if in the
affirmative, the date when it was promulgated, and submit a copy of
said
decision.cralaw:red
Time and again, this
Court has emphasized that:
Delay in the disposition
of cases undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary.
Thus, judges should dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide
cases within the required period. To uphold the integrity of their
office,
their work should at all times reflect the values of diligence and
professional
competence.[12]chanrobles virtual law library
In A.M. No. MTJ-99-1232,
re the Report On The Spot Judicial Audit Conducted In The Metropolitan
Trial Court, Branch 40, Quezon City,[13]
the Court ruled that delay in the disposition of even one case
constitutes
gross inefficiency which this Court will not tolerate.chanrobles virtual law library
Under Section 9 of Rule
140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision
or order, or in transmitting the records of a case is a less serious
charge.
Section 11 of the same Rule provides for the applicable penalty, to wit:
Sec.
11.
Sanctions. – .
B. If the
respondent
is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions
shall
be imposed:
1.
Suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1)
nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of
more
than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
As to the practice of
Judge
Claraval and Judge Reyes in noting their orders either granting or
denying
motions, on the margins of motions submitted by the parties, the ruling
enunciated by the Court in Eballa vs. Paas, to wit:
However,
the
record shows that Judge Paas did not actually issue a formal order
disposing
of the motion for reduction of bail but only noted her action denying
the
motion on the margin thereof. Respondent judge’s order should at
least have been quoted in a notice signed by the clerk of court and a
copy
of the notice should have been served on complainant. As it is,
complainant
learned of the denial of her motion when she went to the court to
inquire
about the status of her cases.chanrobles virtual law library
The practice of
some
lower court judges of merely noting their orders either granting or
denying
motions on the margin of the motions is inconsistent with the purpose
of
R.A. No. 6031, effective August 4, 1969, to make inferior courts also
courts
of record. The proceeding of said courts should now be recorded
in
a formal manner. There is all the more reason for insisting on
this
requirement in the case at bar because respondent judge was resolving a
motion for reduction of bail, which is a fundamental right of the
accused
in criminal cases. Respondent judge should explain the reason for
the denial of complainant’s motion, instead of simply noting her action
on the margin of such motion.[14]
(Emphasis supplied.)
should serve as a guide
to all trial judges. Although R.A. No. 6031 refers to the
conversion
of municipal and city courts to courts of record way back 1969, the
regional
trial courts, formerly courts of first instance, have always been
courts
of record. As such, regional trial court judges should likewise
comply
with said guideline.
In the Eballa case,
the Court considered it as a sufficient compliance if the judge’s order
had been quoted in a notice signed by the clerk of court and copy of
the
notice served on the parties. Indeed, for courts saddled with so
many cases to handle, the said practice may be practical and saves the
court time and effort in issuing formal orders or resolutions.
However,
the same should be limited only to motions that are definitely
non-adversarial
in nature, and not when it involves the fundamental rights of the
accused
in criminal cases, such as, motion for reduction of bail, where the
judge
must explain the reason for the denial of his motion.cralaw:red
Trial judges must therefore
exercise extreme caution in noting their actions on the margins of the
motions submitted to them for action and if they have done so on
non-adversarial
motions, for reasons of expediency they must see to it that the parties
are notified of the actions taken by them through a notice sent by the
clerk of court of the action taken on a particular motion.chanrobles virtual law library
IN VIEW OF ALL THE FOREGOING,
the Court finds:
1. Judge Antonio
Esteves GUILTY of undue delay in deciding eleven cases submitted for
decision
and in resolving four motions beyond the 90-day reglementary
period.
He is FINED Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with a stern WARNING
that
a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely;
2. Judge Clarence
Villanueva GUILTY of undue delay in deciding twenty-six cases submitted
for decision beyond the 90-day reglementary period. With the
mitigating
circumstance of poor health, he is FINED Twenty Thousand Pesos
(P20,000.00)
with a WARNING that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more
severely;chanrobles virtual law library
3. Judge Edilberto
T. Claraval GUILTY of undue delay in deciding a criminal case beyond
the
90-day reglementary period. He is FINED Ten Thousand Pesos
(P10,000.00);
and ADMONISHED to strictly devise an efficient system of court
management
and personnel supervision and is further warned that a similar
infraction
in the future shall be dealt with more severely;chanrobles virtual law library
4. Judge Antonio
Reyes GUILTY of undue delay in resolving motions in four cases within
the
reglementary period. He is FINED Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00)
with a warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more
severely.cralaw:red
Before acting on the
charges against Judge Fernando Vil Pamintuan, Atty. Gail Bacbac, Branch
Clerk of Court of Branch 3, is hereby DIRECTED to submit to this Court,
through the Office of the Court Management Office, copies of the
decisions
in Criminal Cases Nos. 17182, 17792, 18130, 18131, 18132, 18148, 18149,
18030 and Civil Cases Nos. 1674, 4347, 4373, 5028, 4880 and LRC Case
No.
1050, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof.cralaw:red
5. Atty. Mauro
R. Muñoz, Jr., the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 60, is
DIRECTED
to inform the Court, within ten (10) days from receipt hereof, whether
Criminal Cases Nos. 19403, 17219 to 17224, 18260 to 18262, 19495, 19502
and 19537 have already been archived pursuant to Circular No. 7-A-92
dated
June 21, 1992.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Quisumbing,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 39-44.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 263-297.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Criminal Cases Nos. 17182, 17792, 18030, 18130, 18131, 18132, 18148 and
18149; Civil Cases Nos. 1168, 1674, 4347, 4373, 5028 and 5205.
[4]
Rollo, p. 264.chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Criminal Cases Nos. 13490, 16667, 16290, 16851, 168552, 15667, 19278,
19398
and 17123; Civil Cases Nos. 5012 and 4770.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 277-278.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Civil Cases Nos. LRC No. 1159, 2597, 4490, 4647, 4649, 4800, 4818,
1896,
5115 and 5145.
[8]
Eballa vs. Paas, 362 SCRA 390 [2001].chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Rollo, pp. 288-290.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Rollo, pp. 294-295.
[11]
Rollo, pp. 58-62.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
Adriano vs. Judge Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1232. February 19,
2003.
[13]
331 SCRA 627, 638 [2000].chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
362 SCRA 389, 396 [2001]. |