THIRD DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
RTJ-01-1646
March 11, 2003 -versus-
JUDGE
FRANCISCO
C. JOVEN,
Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
The administrative case
at bar arose from a judicial audit of the Regional Trial Court of
Bislig,
Branch 29, Surigao del Sur, presided by respondent Judge Francisco C.
Joven.
The audit was conducted on April 10-11, 2000 by a team from the Office
of the Court Administrator.
The audit team reported
the following findings:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(a) respondent
failed to decide the following cases within the reglementary
period:
criminal cases nos. 1504-H and 2004-B, and civil cases nos. 374-B and
715-H;
(b) respondent
failed to resolve within the mandatory period the pending incidents in
criminal cases nos. 1182-T, 1297-T and 1473-B, and in civil case no.
671-L;
(c) respondent
failed to take appropriate action on the following eighteen (18)
criminal
cases from the time they were filed: criminal cases nos. 1793-B,
2112-B, 2187-B, 2222-T, 2223-T, 2226-B, 2229-B, 2233-L, 2232-L, 2243-B,
2244-L, 2245-B, 2246-B, 2247-T, 2248-B, 2249-T, 2250-T and 2251-T;
(d) respondent
failed to act upon or set the following fifty-three (53) cases for
further
hearing after the lapse of considerable length of time: criminal
cases nos. 946-B, 1004-B, 1008-B, 1215-B, 1241-B, 1453-B, 1575-L,
1581-B,
1672-B, 1858-H, 1865-L, 1926-B, 1965-H, 1990-L, 2043-B, 2090-B, 2094-B,
2179-H, 2182-B, 2198-B, 2235-T, 2236-T, 2237-T and 2241-B, and
civil/other
cases nos., 250-L, 446-B, 509-B, 600-B, 621-H, 629-B, 681-B, 736-B,
755-B,
769-B, 786-B, 788-B, 790-H, 798-B, 800-B, 804-B, SP-707-B,
SCA-733-L,
SP-712-B, SP-722-B, SP-770-B, SP-780-B, SP-792-B, SP-794-B, SP-797-B,
SP-799-B,
SP-825-B, LRC-663-B and LRC-674-B;
(e) respondent
failed to act in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92,
dated
June 21, 1993 (re: Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases) in
the following thirty-one (31) cases: criminal cases nos. 2006-H,
2018-L, 2019-L, 2020-T, 2022-H, 2029-H, 2031-L, 2040-H, 2046-H,
2048-B,
2050-B, 2053-H, 2086-T, 2089-L, 2097-L, 2104-T, 2110-L, 2113-L, 2117-B,
2118-L, 2125-B, 2128-B, 2129-L, 2132-T, 2144-B, 2145-L, 2150-L, 2155-L,
2172-H, 2173-T and 2184-B;
(f) respondent
failed to submit to the Court Administrator a monthly report on the
condition
of the jail and the prisoners within his jurisdiction, pursuant to Rule
114, Sec. 25, Rules on Criminal Procedure, as amended by Administrative
Circular No. 12-94;
(g) respondent
granted the accused's motion to post reduced bail of P2,000.00 in
criminal
case no. 2216-B while the criminal complaint was still under
preliminary
investigation by the municipal judge who recommended or fixed a bail of
P60,000.00; in the same case, respondent also ordered the
discharge
of one of the accused, Jose Pinados, prior to the latter's posting of
the
cash bail;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(h) respondent
did not apply for a leave of absence for April 13 and 14, 2000;
(i) respondent
issued orders dismissing with prejudice some criminal cases on the
ground
of non-service of subpoena to complainants therein; and
(j) respondent
failed to conduct the required monthly visits at the Surigao del Sur
Detention
and Correctional Center in Bislig, Surigao del Sur, where a number of
prisoners
escaped from detention.cralaw:red
The Court, in its Resolution
dated August 16, 2000,[1]
directed respondent to explain why no administrative sanction should be
imposed on him. In addition, it referred the matter regarding the
escape of prisoners from the Surigao Correctional Center to the
Director
of Bureau of Jail Management and Penology for the filing of appropriate
charges against the negligent jail personnel.[2]
In his letter, dated
November 6, 2000,[3]
respondent gave the following explanation:
(a) As to the
first charge, respondent informed the Court that he had rendered a
decision
on criminal cases nos. 1504-H and 2004-B on August 8 and June 16, 2000,
respectively. The decision on the former case was delayed due to
the numerous extensions of time requested by the parties to submit
their
Memorandum. Anent the civil cases, civil case no. 715-H was still
pending as he was awaiting the Memorandum of the parties. In
civil
case no. 374-B, he issued an order to the municipal assessor on May 4,
2000 to appraise the improvement on the subject lot and was still
awaiting
the report from the municipal assessor.cralaw:red
(b) He heard criminal
cases nos. 1182-T, 1297-T and 1473-B jointly. The delay on his
ruling
on the pending incident (motion for reconsideration of his Order) was
due
to the prosecution's failure to conduct a reinvestigation as per his
Order
and the failure of accused's counsel to file an opposition.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to civil
case no. 671-L, the pending incident therein is the motion to dismiss
filed
by the defendants. He set it for hearing on November 6, 2000 and
December 8, 2000 after he gave plaintiff's counsel one last chance to
file
his Comment to the motion.cralaw:red
(c) He has already
taken appropriate action on the following cases, viz:
He ordered the dismissal
of criminal cases nos. 1793 and 2243 on August 31, 2000 and August 17,
2000, respectively, while criminal cases nos. 2112, 2233 and 2242 were
archived. As there was no return of the arrest warrants in
criminal
cases nos. 2222, 2223, 2229 and 2244, he ordered that tracer-letters be
sent to the PNP concerned. In criminal cases nos. 2187, 2226,
2246,
2247 and 2249, the accused were arraigned and the cases were set for
trial.
The prosecution was ordered to conduct a reinvestigation in criminal
cases
nos. 2245 and 2250. In criminal cases nos. 2248 and 2251, accused
were arraigned and pled guilty.cralaw:red
(d) After the
audit, respondent also acted on the following cases:
He ordered the following
cases archived: criminal cases nos. 1004, 1008, 1215, 1241, 1926,
2090 and civil cases nos. 712, 780 and 663. He rendered a
decision
in criminal case no. 1965 and civil case no. 825. He dismissed
criminal
cases nos. 2043 and 946 and civil cases nos. 509, 629, 736, 707 and
794.
He ordered the setting of the following cases for hearing:
criminal
cases nos. 2094, 2179, 2198, 2235, 2236, 2237, 2241, 1581, 2182, 1858
and
civil cases nos. 600, 681, 770, 797, 446 and 800. He ordered
civil
cases nos. 798, 804, 733 and 722 to be set for pre-trial. He
approved
the compromise agreements in civil cases nos. 755, 768 and 769 and
ordered
the suspension of hearing in criminal case no. 1865 and civil case no.
786. Finally, respondent reported that he has issued the
necessary
orders in criminal cases nos. 1453, 1575, 1672 and civil cases nos.
250,
621, 788, 790, 792, 799 and 674.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
(e) As to the
other cases reported by the audit team, respondent issued the necessary
orders to archive them.cralaw:red
(f) He regularly
conducted the monthly inspection of the jail and prisoners within his
jurisdiction
as the jail was right in front of his residence.[4]
However, he admitted his failure to submit the reports regarding his
monthly
visits but claimed that this was due to inadvertence, not negligence.
He
attached to his letter-explanation the aforesaid monthly inspection
reports.[5]
(g) As to his
grant of reduced bail of P2,000.00 in criminal case no. 2216-B, he
explained
that he found the amount reasonable as the case involved only a
violation
of the Forestry Law. The bail was posted late in the afternoon of
August 6, 1999, a Friday, but the official receipt was issued only on
August
9, 1999.cralaw:red
(h) He did not
file a leave of absence for April 13 and 14, 2000 because he reported
for
work on said days, as evidenced by the orders he dictated in open court
on said dates which he attached to his letter-explanation.cralaw:red
Respondent offered no
explanation regarding his order of provisional dismissal of criminal
case
no. 2141-B (People vs. Julito Villamater, accused in a frustrated
murder case) for failure of complainant and his witnesses to
appear
despite the fact that the records showed that complainant's address was
incorrectly stated in the subpoena, hence, complainant's non-appearance
during the scheduled hearings.cralaw:red
Thereafter, respondent's
clerk of court informed the Court that respondent has already resolved
all the undecided cases reported by the audit team, except civil case
no.
374, the decision of which was deferred pending the submission of the
appraisal
report by the Bislig City Assessor's Office.cralaw:red
In its Resolution, dated
July 1, 2002, the Court resolved to refer the case to Justice Perlita
J.
Tria Tirona of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report and
recommendation.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On August 21, 2002,
during the pendency of this case, respondent compulsorily retired from
service. He manifested that he has fully complied with all matters
reported
in the judicial audit and requested that the administrative case at bar
be considered close and terminated.cralaw:red
On January 16, 2002,
the Court resolved to release respondent's retirement benefits,
withholding
therefrom the amount of sixty thousand pesos (P60,000.00) pending the
resolution
of three (3) other administrative cases against him.[6]
In her Report,[7]
investigating Justice Tria Tirona found that subsequent to the audit,
respondent
has exerted effort to put his docket in order. However, Justice Tria
Tirona
found inexcusable respondent's failure to decide within the
reglementary
period criminal cases nos. 1504 and 2004 and civil cases nos. 374 and
715.
Anent the two (2) criminal cases and civil case no. 715, respondent
alleged
that these were not yet submitted for decision in view of the series of
extensions for time requested by the prosecution and the defense to
file
their respective Memorandum. With respect to civil case no. 374,
respondent claimed that the case was not yet submitted for decision as
he was still awaiting the report of the municipal assessor regarding
the
value of improvement on the subject lot.cralaw:red
After a careful evaluation
of the records, we agree with the finding of Justice Tria Tirona that
the
reasons cited by respondent for failing to promptly act on and decide
the
aforecited cases are insufficient. Firstly, we note that respondent
exerted
effort to comply with his official duties and act on the numerous cases
pending in his sala only after his office was audited by a team from
the
Office of the Court Administrator. Secondly, we reject
respondent's
explanation that his failure to decide criminal cases nos. 1504 and
2004
and civil case no. 715 was due to the failure of the parties' counsels
to submit the Memoranda he required in said cases. The
Constitution[8]
and the Code of Judicial Conduct[9]
mandate that judges should resolve their cases promptly within ninety
(90)
days from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum.
The
Court issued Administrative Circular No. 28 on July 3, 1989 to make
clear
to all judges that a case is considered submitted for decision upon the
admission of the parties' evidence at the termination of the
trial.
However, should the court allow or require the submission of a
Memorandum,
the case is considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the
last
Memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is
earlier.
The court may grant an extension of time to file the Memorandum but it
will not extend the ninety-day period within which to decide the case.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In the case at bar,
respondent cannot justify his delay in deciding criminal cases nos.
1504
and 2004 and civil case no. 715 on the ground that he was still
awaiting
the submission of the parties' Memoranda which had been long overdue
and
did not seem to be forthcoming. The filing of the Memoranda containing
the summary of issues litigated and proved is not indispensable in the
resolution of the pending cases. It is respondent's obligation as
a trial judge to take down notes during the trial to assist him in the
prompt disposition of the cases without awaiting and relying on the
Memoranda
of the parties.cralaw:red
Neither can we accept
respondent's reason for the delay in deciding civil case no. 374
justified.
After issuing an Order to the municipal assessor of Bislig to appraise
the improvements of the lot subject of the case, respondent simply left
it at that. He failed to monitor the assessor's immediate
compliance
with his Order, hence, the delay in the proceedings of the case.
We cannot countenance this inaction considering its serious efforts to
minimize, if not eradicate, the problems of congestion of court dockets
and delay in the disposition of cases that have been plaguing our court
system. Needless to state, delay in the resolution of cases
erodes
the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its
standards
and brings it into disrepute.[10]
It bears to stress that
the Court is cognizant of the predicament of judges in rendering
decisions
on cases, especially those that involve complex questions of facts or
law.
Almost always, their situation is compounded by heavy caseloads which
may
at times make the allotted period to decide the cases
insufficient.
Hence, the Court allows a certain degree of latitude to judges and
grants
them a reasonable extension of time to resolve cases upon proper
application
by the judge concerned and on meritorious grounds.[11]
In the case at bar, respondent could have requested for a reasonable
extension
of time to decide the cases pending before his sala but he did
not.
For failure to do so, respondent should be held accountable.
Thus,
for incurring delay in rendering the decision on the cases assigned to
him which constitutes a less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140
of
the Rules of Court, as amended, respondent who was compulsorily retired
from service as of August 21, 2001 may be penalized with a fine of not
less than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.[12]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
IN VIEW WHEREOF, respondent
Judge FRANCISO C. JOVEN of the Regional Trial Court of Bislig, Branch
29,
Surigao del Sur, is fined ten thousand five hundred pesos (P10,500.00)
to be taken from his retirement benefits.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, at 13-15.
[2]
August 16, 2000 Resolution; id. at 13-15.
[3]
Id. at 19-29.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Respondent's letter to the Court Administrator, dated October 6, 2000;
id. at 185.
[5]
Id. at 187-228.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Aside from this case, administrative cases nos. OCA IPI-01-1240-RTJ,
OCA
IPI-1071-RTJ and OCA IPI-00-1054-RTJ were likewise filed against
respondent.
The latter case was dismissed for lack of merit in the Court's
Resolution
dated October 3, 2001.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[7]
Id. at 282-287.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Section 5(1), Article VIII.
[9]
Canon 3, Rule 3.05.
[10]
Ang vs. Asis, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1590, January 15, 2002.
[11]
Floro vs. Paguio, 346 SCRA 1 (2000); Gil vs. Janolo, Jr., 347
SCRA
6 (2000).
[12]
Pursuant to Section 11(B) of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, which took effect on
October 1, 2001, amending Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. |