THIRD DIVISION
ENGR.
FUNDADOR
AMBALONG,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-02-1449
February 5, 2003 - versus -
JUDGE
ANTONIO C.
LUBGUBAN,
Respondent. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
D E C I S I O N
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
PUNO,
J.: chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
This is an administrative
complaint filed by Engr. Fundador Ambalong against Judge Antonio C.
Lubguban,
Presiding Judge, Metropolitan Circuit Trial Court, Siquijor-Enrique
Villanueva-Larena,
Siquijor-Siquijor for delay in resolving Civil Case No. 311 for damages
pending before the sala of respondent judge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The complaint alleged
that complainant was the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 311 entitled
"Engr.
Fundador Ambalong vs. Jose Castillon and Rudy Castillon" for damages
based
on quasi-delict filed with the MCTC of Siquijor-Enrique
Villanueva-Larena
presided by respondent judge. After termination of the proceedings on
September
13, 1999, respondent judge directed the parties to submit their
respective
memoranda within thirty (30) days from receipt of the last transcript.
Complainant filed his memorandum on January 5, 2000 while the
defendants
did not file any memorandum. Respondent judge, however, has not
rendered
a decision on the civil case even at the time of filing of this
administrative
complaint on March 14, 2001. Complainant alleged that on February 21,
2001,
respondent judge issued a decision on the separate criminal case
acquitting
the accused driver, Jose Castillon, who was also a defendant in the
civil
case. Complainant claimed that respondent judge violated the rule
requiring
judges to decide a case within three (3) months from the date it is
submitted
for decision.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Comment, respondent
judge admitted that the memorandum submitted by complainant on January
5, 2000 was the last pleading filed in the civil case and that from
that
time, he started to draft the decisions for both the civil and criminal
cases. He finished writing the drafts long before the end of the
three-month
reglementary period, but he kept the same in his office cabinet as he
intended
to make some final editing. It was only in the latter part of November
2000 when his clerk called his attention regarding the status of Civil
Case No. 311 and the related criminal case. Left with no other
recourse,
respondent judge finally completed the draft and rendered the decision
on the civil case on November 27, 2000. Respondent judge averred that
the
oversight might have been due to his crowded docket, plus the fact that
he had other cases to attend to in another sala at Lazi MCTC, Lazi,
Siquijor.
Respondent judge denied complainant’s allegation that there was no
decision
yet on the civil case as of March 1, 2001. He said that a decision has
been rendered on November 27, 2000. However, he intended that copies
thereof
be personally served on the parties during the promulgation of the
judgment
in the criminal case originally set on December 20, 2000 but later
moved
to February 21, 2001. Unfortunately, the office clerk forgot to hand
copies
of the decision in Civil Case No. 311 to the parties on said date.
Hence
it was only on March 6, 2001 when copies of the decision were actually
mailed to the parties. Respondent judge asserted that the delay was not
intentional nor motivated by malice, bias or bad faith.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Complainant and respondent
judge subsequently filed their respective Reply and Rejoinder
(denominated
by respondent judge as "Comment to Reply").chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
After evaluation of
the pleadings filed in this case, the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) found respondent judge guilty of gross inefficiency and
recommended
that he be fined in the amount of P5,000.00. The report and
recommendation
of the OCA stated:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"EVALUATION: As established
by the evidence on record, respondent admitted in his Comment that the
decision in Civil Case No. 311 was not made within the constitutionally
mandated 3-month limit. To this delay, respondent proffers the
explanation
that upon the filing of the last memorandum on January 5, 2000, he
started
writing the draft which he finished before the expiration of the
3-month
reglementary period. He, however, placed the draft in the office
cabinet
for editing and refinement. When his attention was called by one of his
staffs (sic) as to the status of the subject case, it was already in
the
later part of November, or seven months past due. He attributes the
inadvertence
to his crowded docket and he has other cases to attend to in another
sala
at MCTC-Lazi, Siquijor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court has consistently
impressed upon members of the bench that the noble office of a judge is
to render justice not only impartially, but expeditiously as well,
under
the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Being designated as
acting presiding judge in another sala is not a valid justification for
the unreasonable delay in the rendition of judgment in Civil Case No.
311.
If respondent could not comply with the 3-month reglementary period, he
should have asked for an extension of time within which to decide the
case.
He never did.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
That his docket is crowded
is likewise a lame excuse, and will not exculpate him from
administrative
sanction. Respondent should have adopted a proper and efficient court
management
technique since he is the one directly responsible for the proper
discharge
of his official functions. Respondent, however, has been remiss in his
duty and responsibility as court manager by failing to adopt a system
of
court management which resulted in his failure to decide the subject
case
within the reglementary period.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent’s inadvertence
is inexcusable. It is the duty of a judge to take note of the case/s
submitted
for his decision or resolution and to see to it that the same are
decided
within the 3-month period fixed by law. His failure to do so
constitutes
gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanction
(Atty. Vicente P. Montes vs. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas, etc., A.M. No.
RTJ-01-1627,
April 17, 2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully
submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court is our
recommendation
that the instant case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative case
and
that respondent judge be FINED in the amount of P5,000.00 for gross
inefficiency."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
We agree with the recommendation
of the OCA. 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, that is, upon the filing of the last
pleading,
brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court
itself.[1]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent judge admitted
that the last pleading in Criminal Case No. 311 which was complainant’s
memorandum was filed on January 5, 2000. Under the law, respondent
judge
is required to resolve the case within three (3) months or until April
5, 2000. Respondent judge, however, issued the decision only on
November
27, 2000, seven (7) months after the deadline. As submitted by the OCA,
the seven-month delay in the resolution of the case constitutes gross
inefficiency
for which respondent judge is administratively liable. The delay is
inexcusable,
especially since respondent judge admitted that he had commenced
writing
the decision immediately after the case was submitted for decision. He,
however, failed to release it on time because it was kept inside his
office
cabinet and totally slipped his mind until his office clerk belatedly
called
his attention to the status of Civil Case No. 311. This is a clear
indication
of poor management of the court’s docket. Respondent judge has the duty
to keep track of the development of the cases pending before his sala
and
to take note of the cases which are ripe for decision or resolution and
to ensure that said cases are resolved promptly. Canon 3, Rule 3.08[2]
and Rule 3.09[3]
of the Code of Judicial Conduct require judges to manage their dockets
in such manner that the work of their courts is accomplished with
reasonable
dispatch.[4]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Respondent judge seeks
exemption from administrative liability by citing his allegedly crowded
docket and the fact that he had to attend to other cases in another
sala
at the MCTC in Lazi, Siquijor. These reasons, however, do not serve as
an excuse for respondent judge’s oversight. We have ruled in one case
that
"the fact that respondent judge has been the presiding judge of two
court
salas should not be made an excuse and will not save him from
administrative
sanction."[5]
We have likewise ruled that a judge’s heavy caseload is immaterial to
his
obligation to resolve the case and cannot be deemed sufficient excuse
for
his failure to do so.[6]
It is the duty of a judge to dispose of the court’s business promptly
and
decide cases within the period fixed by law. If he feels that for valid
reasons, he could not meet the three-month limit, he may seek from this
Court an extension of time within which to render a decision.
Respondent
judge failed to do so.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court has consistently
impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and
expeditiously
on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. A judge should
always be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the
discharge
of his obligation to promptly administer justice.[7]
Hence, respondent judge’s inability to render judgment within the
three-month
limit as mandated by the Constitution constitutes gross inefficiency,
warranting
the imposition of administrative sanction.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW WHEREOF, a FINE
of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) is imposed on respondent judge.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Panganiban,
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ., concur.chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Article VIII, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution states:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrarychanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Sec.
15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution
must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the date of
submission for the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower
collegiate
courts, and three months for all other lower courts.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(2)
A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon
the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
Rules
of Court or by the court itself.
x
x x x x x x x xchanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
Rule 3.08 -- A judge should diligently discharge administrative
responsibilities,
maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate
the
performance of administrative functions of other judges and court
personnel.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
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 virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Sianghio, Jr. vs. Reyes, 363 SCRA 716 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 26,
Manila,
Presided by Judge Guillermo L. Loja, 362 SCRA 382 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Sanchez vs. Eduardo, 361 SCRA 233 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Guillas vs. Munez, 363 SCRA 701 (2001).chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |