EN BANC
RE:
COMPLIANCE OF
JUDGE MAXWEL S. ROSETE,MUNICIPAL
TRIAL
COURT IN CITIES (MTCC) SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA.chanrobles virtual law library
A.M.
No.
04-5-118-MTCC
July 29, 2004
R
ES O L U T
I O N
DAVIDE, JR., C.J.:cralaw:red
On 16 September 2002,
Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in
Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City, Isabela, wrote Deputy Court
Administrator
(DCA) Jose P. Perez of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA),
requesting
that he be designated as acting judge to any vacant sala within Metro
Manila.
In support of his request, Judge Rosete stated in his letter that he
had
“only a handful of cases pending for trial before his sala numbering to
a little more than one hundred.”
Acting on Judge Rosete’s
request, DCA Perez directed Judge Ruben Plata, Executive Judge of the
Municipal
Circuit Trial Court, Branch 1, Santiago City, and Judge Fe
Albano-Madrid,
Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 21, Santiago City,
to comment on Judge Rosete’s request. Both Judge Plata and Judge
Albano-Madrid
offered no objection to Judge Rosete’s request as stated in their
respective
letters both dated 12 November 2002.cralaw:red
In a memorandum dated
20 January 2003 addressed to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., DCA
Perez recommended the denial of the request of Judge Rosete. According
to DCA Perez, contrary to Judge Rosete’s representation that he
had
“only a handful of cases pending for trial before his sala numbering to
a little more than one hundred,” the records of the OCA showed that, as
of October 2002, Judge Rosete had 326 pending cases in Branch 2, MTCC
of
Santiago City, Isabela, where he is the Presiding Judge, and 212
pending
cases in the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cordon, Isabela, where he
is
the Acting Presiding Judge. The records of the OCA likewise
showed
that at the time of Judge Rosete’s request, there were no vacant courts
in the National Capital Region. In contrast, there was a scarcity of
judges
in the Province of Isabela at the time. Lastly, an
assignment
in the National Capital Region is considered a promotion, and Judge
Rosete’s
record does not show any exemplary performance warranting such
reassignment.chanrobles virtual law library
In a memorandum addressed
to Judge Rosete dated 24 February 2003, the Chief Justice denied his
request
for transfer. Further, Judge Rosete was directed to show cause
why
no disciplinary action should be taken against him for what appears to
be a misrepresentation with respect to the volume of cases pending
before
his sala. Judge Rosete was required to submit to the OCA within
thirty
days from receipt of the said memorandum a list of pending cases in
Branch
2, MTCC of Santiago City and the MTC of Cordon, Isabela, including
information
on the date of filing of the cases, last hearing dates, and their
current
status.cralaw:red
In compliance with the
said memorandum, Judge Rosete submitted on 28 April 2003 a docket
inventory
of cases pending in his regular sala, Branch 2, MTCC of Santiago City,
Isabela, and in the MTC of Cordon, Isabela, where he is the acting
presiding
judge.cralaw:red
The OCA found that a
total of 254 cases were pending in Branch 2, MTCC of Santiago City,
Isabela;
and 105 cases, in the MTC of Cordon, Isabela. It observed that a
comparison of the number of cases pending as of October 2002 and 24
April
2003 showed a significant decrease in the number of pending cases in
the
courts presided by Judge Rosete. Noting that there were 177
pending
cases for trial in the courts presided by Judge Rosete at the time he
made
the statement on 16 September 2000, the OCA surmised that he was
referring
to this figure when he stated that he had only a little more than 100
cases
pending for trial. Thus, the OCA discerned that Judge Rosete did
not commit any apparent misrepresentation on the number of cases
pending before his courts.cralaw:red
We, however, find that
Judge Rosete committed an act of dishonesty and lack of candor in
reporting
to the Court that he had only an insignificant number of cases pending
for trial in support of his request for reassignment.chanrobles virtual law library
At the time the said
statement was made on 6 September 2000, the number of cases pending
before
the courts presided by Judge Rosete was 326 in the MTCC of Santiago
City
and 212 in the MTC of Cordon, Isabela.[1]
Six months thereafter, the number of cases pending before the MTCC of
Santiago
City was reduced to 254, or a decrease of 72 cases; while the number of
cases pending before the MTC, Cordon, Isabela, was likewise reduced to
107, or a decrease of 105 cases.[2]
Despite the decrease, the pending cases at the trial stage in the MTCC
of Santiago City and MTC of Cordon, Isabela, numbered 172 and 42,
respectively.cralaw:red
A total, therefore,
of 214 cases were still pending for trial before the MTCC of Santiago
City
and MTC of Cordon, Isabela. Even if Judge Rosete’s statement that
“there were only a little more than 100 cases pending for trial”
referred to the 172 cases pending for trial in the MTCC of Santiago
City
the statement was a blatant lie. Worse, if indeed the figures he
cited merely referred to the cases pending for trial in the MTCC of
Santiago
City, he evidently suppressed information with respect to the cases
pending
before the MTC, Cordon, Isabela.cralaw:red
Plainly, the statement
was made with no other intention than to deceive the Court as to the
number
of pending cases for trial handled by Judge Rosete for the sole purpose
of justifying his desire to be reassigned to a court of his
choice.
Such deportment and actuation by no less than a member of the Judiciary
towards the Court is, regrettably, an outward manifestation of an
attitude
which does not put service above oneself.cralaw:red
While the act for which
respondent Judge is being disciplined is not in connection with his
dealings
with litigants, the lack of candor he has shown by the
misrepresentation
which he made before the Court is incongruent with the primordial
character
which a magistrate must possess, especially so in this case where the
act
of dishonesty was committed against the Court. A member of the
bar
owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. He must not
do
any falsehood or consent to the doing of any in court; neither shall he
mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.[3]
The moral standard of honesty is equally, if not much more, expected
from
members of the Judiciary, as they are the agents through which the
Court
ensures that the end of justice is served. Dishonesty is anathema
to the very nature of functions which a magistrate performs.chanrobles virtual law library
This conclusion is further
bolstered by the fact that Judge Rosete failed to adequately explain in
his compliance to the memorandum of the Chief Justice his claim that he
had only a handful of cases when the records of the OCA, as well as the
docket inventory he submitted, clearly indicated that the number of
cases
he was handling for trial was more than double the number
he
initially reported.cralaw:red
In addition to Judge
Rosete’s apparent misrepresentation, the OCA also brought to our
attention
the slow movement of cases in his courts. In the MTCC of Santiago
City, Isabela, where Judge Rosete is the Presiding Judge, 31 cases were
filed before the year 2000. Of these 31 cases, the only civil
case
is still at the trial stage; while of the criminal cases, 28 are in the
trial stage and 2 are at the arraignment stage. Of these 31
cases,
4 are governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.cralaw:red
At the MTC of
Cordon, Isabela, where Judge Rosete is the Acting Presiding Judge, a
total
of 27 cases were filed prior to the year 2000. Of these cases, 26
are in the trial stage and 1 is at the pre-trial stage. Eleven of
the 27 cases are within the coverage of the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Apparently, all these cases remained unresolved as of 24 April 2003.
Thus, the OCA
recommended that Judge Rosete should be held liable for non-observance
of the Rules on Summary Procedure and the 90-day limit for mandatory
continuous
trial. It then recommended that Judge Rosete be
imposed
a fine of P10,000 for the “slow movement of cases” in the courts where
he is the presiding judge. He was likewise directed to take
appropriate
action on the cases pending in his sala, especially those whose
disposition
are already beyond the reglementary period under the Rules of Summary
Procedure
and the Revised Rules of Criminal Procedure. The OCA further noted that
Judge Rosete is now facing seven administrative cases, and that he was
previously fined in an administrative case and warned that the
commission
of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.chanrobles virtual law library
We agree with the OCA
with respect to its findings that the movement of cases in the courts
presided
by Judge Rosete is very slow. Indeed, we cannot, in conscience, turn a
blind eye on the apparent slow movement of the considerable
number
of cases in Judge Rosete’s salas, which as indicated in the docket
inventory,
have remained unresolved for several years. We note, however, that the
information contained in the docket inventory, especially with respect
to the MTC of Cordon, Isabela, is incomplete to be able to determine
whether
there have been violations of the Rules on Summary Procedure and the
rule
on mandatory continuous trial. For instance, with respect to criminal
cases
pending before the MTC of Cordon, Isabela, the docket inventory did not
indicate the date of arraignment of the accused. Such information is
material
in determining whether there has been unjustifiable delay attributable
to the judge.cralaw:red
Truly, judges play an
active role in ensuring that cases are resolved with speed and dispatch
so as not to defeat the cause of the litigants.[4]
A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.[5]
They must always be in control of proceedings to ensure that the
mandatory
periods provided in the Rules of Court and several other rules
promulgated
by the Court are faithfully complied with. A judge shall dispose
of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods.[6]
It is in this connection that we reiterate the oft-repeated maxim that
justice delayed is often justice denied. Thus, any delay in the
administration
of justice may result in depriving the litigant of his right to a
speedy
disposition of his case and will ultimately affect the image of the
Judiciary.
A delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice,
brings
the court into disrepute, and ultimately erodes public faith and
confidence
in the Judiciary. Inability to decide a case within the required period
or unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident
constitutes
gross inefficiency and subjects the judge to administrative sanctions.[7]
However, the dictates
of due process and fair play demand that Judge Rosete be given an
opportunity
to explain the causes for the delay in the disposition of cases pending
in his courts. We, therefore, defer the imposition of any
disciplinary
action, if ever we will impose it, until such time that he has provided
us with his explanation.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, for lack
of candor and for dishonesty in attempting to mislead the Court,
respondent
Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, Presiding Judge of Branch 2, Municipal Trial
Court
in Cities of Santiago City, Isabela, and Acting Presiding Judge of the
Municipal Trial Court of Cordon, Isabela, is hereby ordered to pay a
fine
of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000), payable to this Court within ten (10)
days from notice of this resolution. He is further directed tochanrobles virtual law library
A. Show cause within
thirty days from notice of this Resolution why he should not be
subjected
to disciplinary action in connection with the delay in the disposition
of cases pending before the courts of which he is presiding; and
B. Furnish the
Court with an updated docket inventory of cases pending before Branch
2,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Santiago City, Isabela, and before
the
Municipal Trial Court of Cordon, Isabela, (including cases which were
included
in the 24 April 2003 docket inventory but have already been disposed
of)
with the following material information on the relevant dates:
1.
In criminal cases:
a.
filing of information
b.
arrest of the accused
c.
arraignment
d.
commencement of pre-trial or preliminary conference
e.
termination of pre-trial or preliminary conference
f.
commencement of trial
g.
termination of trial
h.
decision
2.
In civil cases:chanrobles virtual law library
a.
filing of complaintchanrobles virtual law library
b.
service of summonschanrobles virtual law library
c.
filing of answer or deadline for filing an answer
d.
filing of last pleading or deadline
e.
pre-trial or preliminary conference
f.
filing of position papers and affidavits or expiration of the period to
file such papers (in summary procedure cases)
g.
commencement of trial
h.
decision.
In case of
non-compliance
with the mandatory periods, he should explain the reasons for
non-compliance.cralaw:red
Let copies of this Resolution
be served personally on Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, spread on his personal
records in the Court, and furnished the Office of the Court
Administrator
for distribution to all courts in the Philippines and the Integrated
Bar
of the Philippines for its information and guidance.chanrobles virtual law library
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, Panganiban,
Quisumbing,
Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona,
Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, and Chico-Nazario, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Based on the records of the OCA as of October 2002.chanrobles virtual law library
[2]
As indicated in the docket inventory dated 24 April 2003.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Canon 10, Code of Professional Responsibility.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Matias v. Plan, 355 Phil. 274, 282 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Rule 1.02, Code of Judicial Conduct.chanrobles virtual law library
[6]
Rule 3.05, Code of Judicial Conduct.chanrobles virtual law library
[7]
Dela Cruz v. Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1582, 4
September
2000, 339 SCRA 558, 561; Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in
the RTC of Kidapawan, Brs. 17 & 23, Kabacan, Brs. 16 & 17,
North
Cotabato, A.M. No. 96-5-169-RTC, 9 May 2003, 403 SCRA 130, 132. |