THIRD DIVISION
OFFICE OF THE
COURT
ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
RTJ-02-1704
March 18. 2003
-versus-
JUDGE TOMAS B.
NOYNAY,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 23, ALLEN,
NORTHERN SAMAR,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
PANGANIBAN,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Delay in the rendition
of judgments diminishes the people's faith in our judicial
system.
If, for some valid reasons, judges cannot comply with the deadlines
prescribed
by law, they should apply for extensions of time to avoid
administrative
sanctions.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case and the
Facts
This administrative
case stems from a Certification[1]
dated July 13, 2001, written by Judge Salvador L. Infante of the
Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 23, Allen, Northern Samar. He reported
therein that at least 56 criminal and civil cases[2]
had been left undecided by Judge Tomas B. Noynay, the former acting
presiding
judge of the same RTC. Of the 56 cases, 22 remain in the
possession
of the latter, while 34 are in the custody of the RTC clerk of court.cralaw:red
Prior to his optional
retirement on December 21, 2000 -- approved by this Court's First
Division
in its Resolution dated July 25, 2001[3]
-- Judge Noynay served as the regular presiding judge of the RTC of
Laoang,
Northern Samar, Branch 21; and as acting presiding judge of the RTC of
Allen, Northern Samar, Branch 23.cralaw:red
When Judge Infante assumed
his duties and functions as the regular judge of the RTC of
Allen,
Northern Samar, Branch 23, on February 1, 2000, he made an inventory of
the cases he inherited from Judge Noynay. On April 13, 2001, he
issued
the aforesaid Certification.cralaw:red
In a letter dated September
17, 2001,[4]
Judge Noynay submitted a Certification,[5]
this time issued by Atty. Emerenciana O. Manook, clerk of court of the
RTC of Allen, Northern Samar, Branch 23. The Certification stated
that respondent judge had already turned over to Atty. Manook all the
records
of the criminal and the civil cases in the former's possession, except
those of Criminal Case No. A-1264, which had been misplaced.
However,
photocopies of the complete records of that case, which was on file
with
the Office of the Public Prosecutor, is now in the possession of the
clerk
of court.cralaw:red
In a Report[6]
dated October 9, 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
directed
Judge Noynay to explain, among others, why a portion of his retirement
benefits should not be forfeited as a result of his failure to decide
the
56 cases.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Explanation[7]
dated December 3, 2001, respondent gave several reasons why he had
failed
to decide the cases during his stint as acting presiding judge. We
reproduce
his Explanation as follows:
"(1) That the undersigned
Acting Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 23, Allen, N. Samar had inherited
more or less twenty (20) cases from then retired Judge Clemente C.
Rosales[,]
the regular Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 23, Allen, N. Samar;
"(2) That the district
of RTC, Branch 23, Allen N. Samar covers seven (7) municipalities with
only one (1) RTC, Branch 23 as compared to the district of Catarman RTC
which covers eight (8) municipalities with two (2) RTC Courts and the
district
of Laoang RTC, all of Northern Samar which covers nine (9)
municipalities
with also two (2) RTC Courts. x x x;
"(3) Pressure of work
- considering the heavy turn out or load of cases x x x;
"(4) [I]ntermittent
electrical brownouts;
"(5) [H]ealth and/or
physical indisposition due to age and the undersigned operation of both
eyes at the Chong Hua Hospital, Cebu City, with doctor's advice not to
overburden them (eyes) x x x;
"(6) Sometimes when
reading/studying, undersigned suffers mental blackout."[8]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Findings and
Recommendations
of the OCA
In its April 17, 2002
Memorandum to the chairman[9]
of the Third Division of this Court, the OCA belittled respondent's
explanation
for his failure to resolve the 56 cases. It explained: "When
health
condition, heavy workload, or other factors hinder [judges], it is
incumbent
upon them to request the Court through this Office x x x additional
time
to decide the cases which they could not reasonably act upon and
decide."[10]
Without any justifiable reason, respondent failed to do so.cralaw:red
In addition, the OCA
found that this was the second time he had been asked to explain his
delay
in rendering decisions. As to the lost records of Criminal Case No.
A-1264,
his negligence may be tempered. After all, he was able to secure
a copy of those records and to immediately turn them over to the clerk
of court, resulting in no actual prejudice reported.cralaw:red
Since respondent had
already retired from the service, the OCA recommended leniency in the
penalty
to be imposed: a fine in the amount of P25,000, which would be
taken
from the P100,000 ordered withheld from his retirement benefits in this
Court's Resolution dated October 24, 2001.[11]
This Court's
Ruling
The Court agrees with
the findings and the recommendations of the OCA, but modifies the
penalty
to conform with the Rules on the matter.
Respondent's
Administrative
Liability
The Code of Judicial
Conduct[12]
mandates judges to dispose of the court's business promptly within the
periods prescribed by the law and the rules. Under the
Constitution,
lower court judges are directed to decide a case within ninety (90)
days
from its submission.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Time and time again,
we have emphasized strict observance of this duty because of our
efforts
to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion
and delay that have long plagued our courts.[14]
Failure to comply with this mandate constitutes gross inefficiency[15]
and warrants administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.[16]
In the present case,
respondent judge reneged on this duty. He has not only failed to live
up
to the demands of his profession, but has caused the erosion of the
people's
faith and confidence in the judiciary.[17]
This Court grants, in
meritorious cases, a reasonable extension of time to dispose of cases
when,
for valid reasons, these cannot be resolved within the reglementary
period.
Respondent should have known that if his health, his caseload or other
factors hindered him from disposing of cases with dispatch, all he
needed
to do was to request an extension of time to dispose of them.[18]
However, he made no such request.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Undue delay in rendering
a decision constitutes a less serious charge under Section 9 of Rule
140
of the Rules of Court. If found guilty thereof, the judge shall
be
suspended from office without salary and other benefits for not less
than
one (1) month or more than three (3) months; or imposed a fine of more
than P10,000, but not exceeding P20,000.cralaw:red
We find the fine of
P20,000 sufficient penalty for the gross inefficiency of respondent,
considering
that this is his second infraction of the same nature -- undue delay in
rendering a decision -- and that he has already retired from the
service.cralaw:red
We reiterate that judges
should always be mindful of their duty to render justice within the
period
prescribed by law. Unreasonable delay in the disposition of a
judicial
matter undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary.[19]
Judges who are unable to live up to this exacting duty should be
disciplined,
if not weeded out of the judiciary. We will not sacrifice the
integrity
of the entire judicial system by holding on to these inefficient
officials.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, Judge Tomas
B. Noynay is found guilty for the second time of undue delay in
rendering
decisions. He is ORDERED to pay a FINE of P20,000, which shall be
deducted from the P100,000 withheld from his retirement benefits.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman),
Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.cralaw:red
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 18-21.
[2]
The following are the reported undecided cases: A-1162, A-1267, A-1259,
A-1264, A-1299, A-1303, A-1319, A-1326, A-1348, A-1394, A-1425, A-
1435,
A-1539, A-607, A-615, A-660, A-692, A-760, A-796, A-811, A-63, A-78,
A-895,
A-935, A-1028, A-1056, A-1057, A-1094, A-1098, A-1150, A-1151, A-1211,
A-1235, A-1238, A-1311, A-1337, A-1345, A-1375, A-1384, A-1366, A-1389,
A-1398, A-1412, A-1439, A-1442, A-1443, A-1446, A-1447, A-1448, A-1449,
A-495, A-675, A-714, A-502, A-Spl. Proc. No. 98, and Spl. Proc. No.
A-70.
[3]
Rollo, p. 45.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., p. 9.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Dated September 14, 2001; rollo, p. 11.
[6]
Signed by Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño and
approved
by Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco Jr.; rollo, pp. 1-8.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 34-36.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Id., pp. 34-35.
[9]
Justice Jose A.R. Melo; id., pp. 41-44.
[10]
OCA's Memorandum, p. 3; rollo, p. 43.
[11]
Id., pp. 4 & 44.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Canon 3, Rule 3.05, Code of Judicial Conduct.
[13]
Section 15, Article VIII, Constitution.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[14]
Guintu v. Lucero, 261 SCRA 1, August 23, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[15]
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 68,
Camiling,
Tarlac, 305 SCRA 61, March 19, 1999; Lambino v. de Vera, 275 SCRA 60,
July
7, 1997.
[16]
Bonifacio Law Office v. Bellosillo, AM No. MTJ-00-1308; Reaport v.
Mariano,
361 SCRA 1, July 11, 2001; Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in
RTC,
Brs. 29, 56 & 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, 316 SCRA 272, October 7,
1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
Bontuyan v. Villarin, AM No. RTJ-02-1718, August 26, 2002; Re: Report
of
the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City,
292
SCRA 8, July 8, 1998; Re: Judge Danilo M. Tenefire, 255 SCRA 184, March
20, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Lambino v. de Vera, supra.
[19]
Spouses Reaport v. Mariano, 361 SCRA 1, July 11, 2001; Abarquez v.
Rebosura,
285 SCRA 109, January 28, 1998. |