EN BANC
[A.M. No. 99-11-470-RTC. July
24, 2000]
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC-Branch 37,
LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN.
R E S O L U T I O N
PARDO, J.:
This administrative
case arose from a judicial audit and physical inventory conducted on September
23, 1999, by a judicial audit team[1] in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Lingayen,
Pangasinan, then presided over by Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer.[2]
The audit took six
(6) days to finish. There were no docket books and semestral docket inventory
of civil cases. The audit team found that "there were One Hundred and
Thirty-five (135) cases pending as of September 23, 1999 (38 criminal cases and
97 civil/other cases). Based on the records of the cases presented to the team
for examination, the decisions in four (4) criminal cases were set for
promulgation, four (4) criminal cases and thirty-two (32) civil/other cases
were submitted for decision, incidents in four (4) civil cases were submitted
for resolution, fourteen (14) criminal cases and twenty-two (22) civil
cases/other cases were on trial/set for hearing, two (2) criminal cases and
five (5) civil cases were scheduled for pre-trial conference, two (2) civil
cases for ex-parte presentation of evidence, four (4) criminal cases set for
arraignment of the accused, nineteen (19) civil/other cases with orders for
compliance by parties, one (1) criminal case for reinvestigation, three (3)
civil cases with suspended proceedings, five (5) criminal cases and six (6) civil/other
cases without further action taken or setting in the calendar despite the lapse
of a considerable length of time, four (4) criminal cases with outstanding
warrants of arrest and 4 civil cases with pending return on summons.
As of the
termination of the audit on September 29, 1999, there were twenty-nine (29)
cases undecided beyond the mandatory ninety-day period. Of these twenty-nine
cases, four (4) were criminal cases and twenty five (25) were civil/other
cases.
Upon further
investigation, the Audit team also found that Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer was
previously severely reprimanded by the Supreme Court in two separate instances.
The first was on June 10, 1997, in A.M. No. 95-5-156 RTC, due to his failure to
decide cases submitted for decision despite having been granted fourteen (14)
months extension, and the other was on October 7, 1997, in A.M. No.
96-11-415-RTC, for failure to decide two criminal cases for an unreasonable
length of time when he was acting presiding judge, Regional Trial Court Branch
57, San Carlos City, Pangasinan.
The team noted that
most of the employees of the court were late in reporting for work in the
morning and left the office early in the afternoon.[3]
As a result of this
report, on January 18, 2000, the Supreme Court issued a resolution requiring
respondent Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer to explain within ten (10) days why no
administrative complaint should be filed against him. Hence, the compliance
submitted by Judge Ferrer on June 15, 2000.
In his compliance,
Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer informed the Supreme Court that of the twenty-nine
(29) cases submitted for decision, he disposed of a total of four (4) criminal
cases; eight (8) civil cases; two (2) LRC cases and one special proceedings
case, thereby leaving eighteen (18) undecided cases.
Judge Nicodemo T.
Ferrer asserted that he came to know of the undecided cases that piled up
beyond the mandatory period when an audit was conducted by the Judicial Audit
Team in September 1999. The reason is his failure to monitor the aging of cases
submitted for decision after Branch Clerk of Court Zeny H. Muerong transferred
to the Office of the Provincial Prosecutor in May 1998, leaving him with no
Branch Clerk of Court for one (1) year and four (4) months, thus, he relied
mainly on a legal researcher. He admitted that he was negligent in not minding
the cases submitted for decision.
Judge Ferrer
implores the Court to consider his lapse excusable negligence and his inability
to receive his salary as Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan from the time
he assumed office on February 11, 2000, to the present, as sufficient
punishment.
We are not
impressed or convinced of the sincerity of his excuses.
"This Court
has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and
expeditiously, for it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice
denied. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and
confidence in the judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with
dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency. Failure of a
judge to render a decision within the ninety-day period from its submission
constitutes serious misconduct to the detriment of the honor and integrity of
his office and in derogation of a speedy administration of justice."[4]
Judge Ferrer was
remiss in his responsibility as judge by failing to adopt a system of record
management. "A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision
or resolution and is expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may
act on them promptly."[5]
Aside from this
requirement from a personal standpoint, several Supreme Court Circulars require
judges to list the cases submitted for decision in their quarterly report to
the Supreme Court and in a special list to be posted in the court's bulletin
board.[6]
Judge Ferrer gave
as excuse that he did not have a Branch Clerk of Court for one year and four
months and that it was not intentional on his part that he was unable to
personally monitor the cases submitted for decision.[7] The excuses are bankrupt and pharisaical, as they
are puerile. It was Judge Ferrer's duty to recommend to the Supreme Court the
immediate appointment of a Branch Clerk of Court. As judge, he was duty bound
to personally keep a tabulation of cases submitted for decision. With more
reason, Judge Ferrer was executive judge, and must be an example of rectitude
in his actions. The designation as executive judge is a recognition of his
leadership qualities but does not excuse him from complying with his
constitutional duty to decide cases within the prescribed period from
submission for decision.[8]
"The claim of
good faith and absence 'of malice in these glaring instances of incompetence
and ineptitude do not abate his consequent liability. For good faith and lack
of malicious intent cannot completely free respondent judge from
liability".[9]
"Rule 3.05 of
Canon 3 admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and
decide cases within the period fixed by law. It is the duty of the judge to
take note of the cases submitted to him for decision and see to it that the
same is decided within the 90-day period fixed by law, and failure to do so
constitutes gross inefficiency."[10]
"Respondent
Judge,[11] as well as all other judges, must be reminded that a
case should be decided within 90 days from its submission, otherwise, the judge
would be guilty of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. Failure to render a
decision within the ninety (90)-day period from its submission constitutes
serious misconduct to the detriment of the honor and integrity of his office
and in derogation of a speedy administration of justice."[12]
We have
consistently considered the failure of a judge to decide a case within ninety
(90) days as gross inefficiency.[13] The penalty imposed vary in each case, from fine,[14] suspension,[15] suspension and fine,[16] and even dismissal,[17] depending chiefly on the number of cases left
undecided within the reglementary period and other factors, such as the damage
suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the
judge.[18] "Thus, in one case, we set the fine at ten
thousand pesos (P10,000.00) for failure of a judge to decide eighty two (82)
cases within the reglementary period, taking into consideration the mitigating
circumstance that it was the judge's first offense.[19] In another case, the fine imposed was sixty thousand
pesos (P60,000.00), for the judge had not decided about 25 or 27 cases.[20] Still in other cases, the fine was variably set at
fifteen thousand (P15,000.00), for nineteen (19) undecided cases, taking into
consideration that it was the judge's first offense,[21] twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), for three (3)
undecided criminal cases;[22] eight thousand pesos (P8,000.00) for not deciding a
criminal case for three (3) years;[23] forty thousand pesos (P40,000.00), for not deciding
two hundred seventy eight (278) cases within the prescribed period, taking note
of the judge's failing health and age;[24] and ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00), for belatedly
rendering a judgment of acquittal in a murder case after one year and one-half
years from the date the case was submitted for decision.[25] In another case,[26] suspension without pay for a period of six (6)
months was imposed since, besides the judge's failure to timely decide an
election protest for eight (8) months, the judge submitted false certificates
of service and was found guilty of habitual absenteeism.[27]
Judge Ferrer
admitted he failed to decide eighteen (18) cases within the mandatory
ninety-day period. He has a record of reprimand twice for the same offense of
failure to decide cases submitted for decision within the mandatory period,
even after he was granted fourteen (14) months extension.
Decision-making,
among other duties, is the primordial and most important duty of a member of
the bench. The speedy disposition of cases in our courts is a primary aim of
the judiciary so the ends of justice may not be compromised and the judiciary
will be true to its commitment to provide litigants their constitutional right
to a speedy trial[28] and a speedy disposition of their cases.[29]
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
the Court hereby imposes upon Judge
Nicodemo T. Ferrer (now Associate Justice, Sandiganbayan) a fine of TWENTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00), payable within thirty (30) days. He is ADMONISHED
to be more diligent in the performance of his sworn duty as a dispenser of
justice, especially that he is now an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan, a
special court likewise covered by the mandatory period for deciding cases
prescribed by the Constitution.[30]
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo,
Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Buena,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and De
Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
Davide, Jr.,
C.J., no part. Close relation to a
party.
[1] Composed of Justice (ret.) Romulo S. Quimbo,
Consultant, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Mr. Exequiel C. Rojas, Mr.
German C. Averia, Ms. Florentina A.Najarro, Mr. Chibert P. Aguirre and Ms.
Liberty A. Runez.
[2] At that time, Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer was Executive
Judge, Regional Trial Court, Pangasinan, at Lingayen. On January 31, 2000, he
was appointed Associate Justice, Sandiganbayan.
[3] Rollo, Memorandum for Chief Justice Hilario G.
Davide, Jr.: Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in the RTC, Branch 37,
Lingayen, Pangansinan, by Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, dated
October 18, 1999, pp. 1-2.
[4] Cueva v. Villanueva, 305 SCRA 459 (1999); OCA v.
Butalid, 293 SCRA 589, 601 (1998), citing Report on the Judicial Audit
conducted in the RTC, Branch 16 of Laoag City, Presided by Judge Luis B. Bello,
Jr., 247 SCRA 519 (1995)
[5] OCA v. Benedicto, 296 SCRA 63, 72 (1998),
citing Mamamayan ng Zapote I, Bacoor, Cavite v. Balderian, 265 SCRA 360
(1996)
[6] Circular No. 8-93, dated June 21, 1993; Circular No.
10-94, dated June 29, 1994.
[7] Compliance by Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer, dated June 7,
2000.
[8] In Re: Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., A.M. No.
99-7-250-RTC, April 5, 2000.
[9] OCA v. Benedicto, supra, Note 5, citing
Ting v. Atal, 231 SCRA 80 (1994)
[10] Ibid., p. 71.
[11] Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer was a Regional Trial Court
judge since 1983.
[12] Saylo v. Rojo, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1225, April 12,
2000, citing Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in the RTC, Branch 68,
Camiling, Tarlac, 305 SCRA 61, 68 (1999); Alonto-Frayna v. Astih, 300
SCRA 199, 203-204 (1998)
[13] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in RTC
Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, 292 SCRA 8, 23 (1998)
[14] In re: Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., supra, Note
No. 8; Re: Judge Irman Zita V. Masamayor, A.M. No. 98-12-381-RTC, October 5,
1999; Re: Judge Segundo B. Catral, 311 SCRA 96 (1999); Balayo v. Buban,
A.M. RTJ-99-1477, September 9, 1999; Re: Judge Francisco P. Villanueva, A.M.
No. 98-3-34-MeTC, August 25, 1999; Tauro v. Colet, 306 SCRA 340 (1999);
Re: judge Sergio S. Apostol, 303 SCRA 208 (1999)
[15] Bolalin v. Occiano, 266 SCRA 203 (1997)
[16] Sanchez v. Vestil, 298 SCRA 1 (1998)
[17] Alonto-Frayna v. Astih, supra, Note 12;
OCA v. Butalid, 293 SCRA 589, 601 (1998); Cueva v. Villanueva, supra,
Note 4.
[18] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in RTC
Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, 292 SCRA 8, 23 (1998)
[19] Re: Judge Danilo M. Tenerife, 255 SCRA 184 (1996)
[20] Re: Report of the Judicial Audit Conducted in the
RTC, Branches 61, 134, and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, 248 SCRA 5 (1995)
[21] Report on the Judicial and Physical Inventory of the
Records of cases in MTCC-Br. 2, Batangas City, 248 SCRA 36 (1995)
[22] Baguio v. Torres, 211 SCRA 1 (1992)
[23] Navarro v. Judge del Rosario, 270 SCRA 264
(1997)
[24] Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory
of the Cases in RTC Br. 138, Makati City, 254 SCRA 644 (1996)
[25] Lopez v. Alon, 254 SCRA 166 (1996)
[26] Bolalin v. Occiano, 266 SCRA 203 (1997)
[27] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in RTC Branches
29 and 59, Toledo City, supra, Note 18.
[28] Article III, Section 14(2), 1987 Constitution.
[29] Article III, Section 16, 1987 Constitution.
[30] Article VIII, Section 15 (1), 1987 Constitution.