SECOND DIVISION
RE:
REPORT
ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 71, ANTIPOLO
CITY.chanrobles virtual law library
A.M.
No.
03-11-652-RTC
July 21, 2004
D E C I S I O N
CALLEJO,
SR., J.:
On
November 7, 2003,
the
judicial audit team of the Office of the Court Administrator submitted
a report on the inventory of cases in the Regional Trial Court, Branch
71, Antipolo City, then presided by Judge Felix S. Caballes.[1]
The team found that Judge Caballes failed to accomplish the following:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
(a) to
decide
within the ninety (90)-day reglementary period, 29 criminal cases and
21
civil cases;chanrobles virtual law library
(b) to
resolve
within
the reglementary period, motions/pending incident in the cases; and
(c) to
take
further
actions in 92 cases.
The
team recommended
that
Judge Caballes be required to explain why no administrative sanction
should
be imposed upon him for such failure, and to direct the Fiscal
Management
Office to withhold the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos
(P100,000.00)
from his retirement benefits, pending his explanation on the matter.
The
Court adopted the foregoing recommendation in a Resolution dated
January
19, 2004.
In his Letter dated
March 22, 2004, Judge Caballes explained that his failure to decide and
resolve some criminal and civil cases was not due to laziness, neglect
of duty or complacency. He narrated that he had been suffering
from
his heart ailment, and underwent a quadruple by-pass surgery on May 27,
1997.
He further reasoned as follows:
It
must
also
be stated that I had no regular appointed Clerk of Court. My
Acting
Clerk of Court, not being a lawyer, although she is an LLB graduate,
has
naturally some limitations to help me in my work. She tried
her best and did well during my term. But things would have been
different if she were a full-fledged lawyer to discuss with and to do
research
work.chanrobles virtual law library
My Court was, and
still
is, undermanned, like the other branches of the Antipolo Court.
With
a caseload of 1,500 cases, it is almost humanly impossible for a staff
of eleven personnel to be at par with other Courts which have only 200
or 250 cases – or with those in Batanes and Tawi-Tawi. Typing of
subpoenae and other Court’s processes alone would consume more than one
week’s fulltime (sic) work. That is why a big number of my
unresolved
incidents and cases were either not brought to my attention or misfiled
or “nadagdagan” among many folders of cases. The small office of
the staff and lack of cabinets or space to file the cases are
contributory
factors also.chanrobles virtual law library
And so with all
honesty
and candor, I say that my inability to resolve and decide the pending
cases
prior to my retirement date was because of circumstances beyond human
control
– and not by indolence, complacency or willful neglect of duty.
No
matter how much I tried to decide as many cases as I could, it was
beyond
my physical tolerance to resolve all.chanrobles virtual law library Judge Caballes appealed
for the Court’s sense of fairness, kindness, and understanding.
Rule 3.05 of The Code
of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of the court’s
business
promptly and to act, one way or the other, on pending cases within the
prescribed period therefor.[2]
No less than the 1987
Constitution requires that cases at the trial court level be
resolved
within three (3) months from the date they are submitted for decision.[3]
Undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the clogging of the
court
dockets is still the bane of the judiciary. Judges are expected
to
observe utmost diligence and dedication in the performance of their
judicial
functions and the discharge of their duties.[4]
However, this Court
is not unaware of the heavy caseload of judges. It is precisely
for
this reason that the Court has been sympathetic to requests for
extensions
of time within which to decide cases and resolve matters and incidents
related thereto. Indeed, the Court allows a certain degree of
latitude
to judges and grants them a reasonable extension of time to decide and
resolve cases upon proper application and on meritorious grounds.[5]
Thus, Judge Caballes
cannot claim ill health as the primary reason for his failure to act
promptly
on the cases pending before his sala. As pointed out by the Court
Administrator, “his illness should not be an excuse for his failure to
render the corresponding decisions or resolutions within the prescribed
period.” Whenever a judge cannot decide a case promptly, all he
has
to do is ask the Court for a reasonable extension of time to resolve
the
case,[6]
which the respondent failed to do.cralaw:red
Furthermore, Judge Caballes
cannot simply take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of
his
court personnel.[7]
Rules 3.08[8]
and 3.09[9]
of the Code
of Judicial Conduct mandate that a judge should have the primary
responsibility
of maintaining the professional competence of his staff.[10]
It must, likewise, be stressed that decision-making, among others, is
the
primordial and most important duty of every member of the bench.[11]
Under Section 9, Rule
140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order
is a less serious charge, punishable by either suspension from office
without
salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than
three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding
P20,000.00.[12]
WHEREFORE, the
Court finds JUDGE FELIX S. CABALLES guilty of gross inefficiency, and
imposes
upon him a FINE of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00). The
Financial Management Office is DIRECTED to release the balance of the
respondent’s
retirement benefits as soon as such fine has been deducted therefrom.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Austria-Martinez,
Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Now retired.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
Edgardo D. Balsamo, etc. v. Judge Pedro L. Suan, et al.,
A.M.
No. RTJ-01-1656, September 17, 2003.
[3]
Ambalong v. Lubguban, 397 SCRA 7 (2003).chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Saylo v. Rojo, 330 SCRA 243 (2000).chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Romero Teodosio, et al. v. Hon. Judge Arturo R. Carpio, etc., A.M. No.
MTJ-02-1416, February 27, 2004.
[6]
See note 3.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Re: Cases Left Undecided by Retired Judge Antonio E. Arbis, RTC, Branch
48, Bacolod City, 395 SCRA 398 (2003).
[8]
Rule 3.08. – A judge should diligently discharge administrative
responsibilities,
maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate
the
performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court
personnel.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Rule 3.09. – A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel
to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at
all times, the observance of high standards of public service and
fidelity.chanrobles virtual law library
[10]
Report on the On-the-Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal
Circuit
Trial Court, Teresa-Baras, Rizal, 389 SCRA 1 (2002).chanrobles virtual law library
[11]
Re: Request of Judge Roberto S. Javellana, RTC, Br. 59, San
Carlos
City, etc., for Extension of Time to Decide Civil Cases Nos. X-98 &
RTC 363, 404 SCRA 373 (2003).
[12]
Section 11(B) of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, September
11, 2001. |