EN BANC
[A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634. October 25, 2001]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE SILVERIO Q. CASTILLO, RTC, BR. 43, DAGUPAN CITY, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
PUNO, J.:
The instant administrative matter
arose from the judicial audit and physical inventory of records conducted by
the complainant Office of the Court Administrator during the period September
16 to 20, 1996 in all the branches of the Regional Trial Court of Dagupan
City. The respondent Hon. Silverio Q.
Castillo is the presiding judge of the court’s Branch 43.
Based on the written report[1] submitted by Senior Deputy Court Administrator
Reynaldo R. Suarez to then Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa, it appears that the
respondent failed to decide LRC Case No. D-2050 entitled “Registration of Title
- National Land Titles, SGMC, Applicant” within the 90-day reglementary period.[2] Consequently, on January 21, 1997, we issued a
resolution directing the respondent, within five days from notice, to: “(a)
render the decision in LRC Case No. D-2050 which is already beyond the 90-day
reglementary period and to submit proof of such disposal and (b) explain in
writing, also within the same period, why no disciplinary action should be
taken against him for his failure to decide the aforesaid case within the
prescribed period.”[3]
In compliance with our January 21
Resolution, the respondent offered the following explanation:
“a. On 23 July 1998, this Honorable Court has decided LRC Case No. D-2050; (See Annex A-1)
b. On 07 September 1998, said case was appealed to the Court of Appeals; (See Annex A-1)
c. On same date, the
then Clerk of Court V, Atty. Rafael T. Martinez forwarded to the Court of
Appeals the entire records of the above-entitled case. (See Annex B)”[4]
The Office of the Court
Administrator, however, found the aforestated explanation as insufficient
compliance. It noted, in a memorandum
dated May 22, 2001 for Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., that while the
respondent asserted that a decision has already been rendered in the case, he
failed to account for the delay in its rendition, thus:
“ x x x. Although LRC Case No. D-2050 was decided on 23 July 1998, such decision was rendered way beyond the 90-day reglementary period. The report of the audit team stated that this case was submitted for decision on 12 December 1995. The 90-day period to decide the case lapsed on 12 March 1996. It is obvious that, there was a delay of 2 years and 4 months in deciding the subject case. Judge Castillo did not state in his report the reason or justification for the said delay.
Clearly, Judge Castillo’s failure to decide the subject case
without stating any reason or justification is an act amounting to a neglect of
duty or inefficiency. x x x”[5]
It
thereafter recommended that an appropriate administrative sanction be imposed
against him.
Acting on the said recommendation,
we resolved, on July 10, 2001, to “RE-DOCKET the failure of Judge Silverio Q.
Castillo, RTC, Branch 43, Dagupan City, to decide LRC Case No. D-2050 as A.M.
No. RTJ-01-1634 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Silverio Q.
Castillo, RTC, Branch 43, Dagupan City).”[6] In addition, we resolved further to “REFER A.M. No.
RTJ-01-1634 to Associate Justice Presbitero Velasco, Court of Appeals, for
investigation, report and recommendation thereon within sixty (60) days from
receipt of the records thereof.”[7]
On September 24, 2001, the OCA,
through Attys. Vener B. Pimentel and Amelito O. Bugtas, filed a
“Manifestation/Motion”[8] praying for the dismissal of the case. The two lawyers found after a careful study
that the land registration case was actually submitted for decision only on
June 24, 1998 after the completion of the ex-parte hearings. The decision was handed down on July 23,
1998 or within the prescribed term.
The very next day, on September
25, 2001, Investigating Justice Hon. Martin S. Villarama Jr. of the Court of
Appeals, who took over the investigation of the case from Justice Velasco in
view of the latter’s appointment as the new Court Administrator, granted the
said “Manifestation/Motion” and accordingly recommended that the present
administrative case against the respondent be dismissed, for lack of merit.[9]
We agree with, and hereby adopt,
the recommendation.
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of
the Constitution[10] requires judges of lower courts to decide cases or
resolve matters within three months from the date of their submission for
resolution.[11] Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct[12] similarly enjoins judges to dispose of their business
and decide cases within the required period.[13] Failure to do so promptly and expeditiously
constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative
sanctions on them.[14]
There is no gainsaying, however,
that the ninety-day period applies only after the case is submitted for
decision, not from the start of the trial.[15] 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.[16]
In the administrative matter
before us, based on OCA’s own findings, LRC Case No. D-2050 was considered
submitted for decision only on June 24, 1998 after the completion of the ex-parte
hearings conducted on April 17 and June 24, 1998. During those hearings, the applicant presented its evidence. By July 23, 1998, the respondent rendered
his Decision on the case “ordering and decreeing the registration and
confirmation of the parcel of land to the applicant.” To be sure, no delay can
be imputed against him as he was in fact able to dispose of the pending case in
just twenty-nine (29) days (or less than a month), way ahead of the ninety-day
period mandated by law.
Again, we take this occasion to
remind judges that the public trust character of their office imposes upon them
the highest degree of duty and responsibility.[17] They should always be imbued with a high sense of
duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to promptly
administer justice.[18] The trial court judge, being the paradigm of justice
in the first instance, is exhorted to dispose of the court's business within
the required periods. Delay results in
undermining the people's faith in the judiciary from whom the prompt hearing of
their supplications is anticipated and expected, and reinforces in the mind of
litigants that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.[19]
IN VIEW WHEREOF, the present administrative case is hereby DISMISSED
for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo,
Melo, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Pardo, Buena, Ynares-Santiago,
De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur.
Vitug, J., on official leave.
[1] Report on the
Judicial Audit Conducted in all the Branches of the RTC of Dagupan City; Rollo,
pp. 1-19.
[2] Report, p. 6; Rollo,
p. 6.
[3] Resolution, A. M.
No. 96-12-426-RTC, January 21, 1997; Rollo, pp. 20-23.
[4] Compliance; Rollo,
pp. 33-34.
[5] Memorandum, Re: A.M.
No. 96-12-426-RTC, Office of the Court Administrator; Rollo, pp. 39-44.
[6] Resolution, July 10,
2001; Rollo p. 45.
[7] Ibid.
[8] Manifestation/Motion;
Rollo, p. 55.
[9] Report and
Recommendation; Rollo, p. 61.
[10] Section 15. (1) All
cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be
decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the
Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all
lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
[11] Adao v.
Lorenzo, 316 SCRA 570 (1999).
[12] Rule 3.05. A
judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within
the required periods.
[13] Report on the
Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Brs. 29, 56, and 57, Libanan, Camarines Sur,
316 SCRA 272 (1999).
[14] Office of the Court
Administrator v. Quinanola, 317 SCRA 37 (1999).
[15] People v.
Sesbreño, 314 SCRA 87 (1999).
[16] Article VIII,
Section 15(2), 1987 Constitution.
[17] Re: Inventory of
Cases in the RTC, Branch 11, Balayan, Batangas, 234 SCRA 502 (1994).
[18] Office of the Court
Administrator v. Benedicto, 296 SCRA 62 (1998).
[19] Casia v.
Gestopa, Jr., 312 SCRA 204 (1999).