FIRST
DIVISION
|
Re: Judicial Audit of the RTC, |
|
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1950 (Formerly
A.M. No. 05-4-242-RTC) Present: PANGANIBAN, C.J. Chairperson, YNARES-SANTIAGO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CALLEJO,
SR., and CHICO-NAZARIO,
JJ. Promulgated: February 13, 2006 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The administrative case at bar arose
from the judicial audit of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Zamboanga City, Branch 14,
presided by respondent Judge Ernesto R. Gutierrez.
The
Court Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) of this
Court conducted a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases in Branch 14
of the RTC of Zamboanga City, in view of respondent
Judge’s compulsory retirement on
The audit team submitted its report
dated
I. The
HON. Ernesto R. Gutierrez, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br.14,
A. EXPLAIN within fifteen (15) days why you
shall not be administratively dealt with for your failure (1) to decide the
following case[s], which are already beyond the reglementary
period to decide, to wit: Criminal Cases (sic) Nos. 9991, 9978, 13750, 14345,
15863; and Civil Cases (sic) Nos. 3910, 4579, 4739, 4883, 4891, 4907, 5010,
5054, (SCA) 255 and (SCA) 315; (2) to resolve the following cases with
incidents or motions which have not been resolved in due time, to wit: Civil
Cases (sic) Nos. 2080, 4245, 4347, 4383, 4548, 4617, 4898, 4988, 4989, 5069,
and 5171; (3) to act on the following cases: (3.a) which have not been further
acted upon (NFA) for a long time already, to wit: Criminal Cases (sic) Nos.
9907, 10603; and Civil Cases 3297, 3815, 4076, 4085, 4139, 4162, 4364, 4370,
4412, 4499, 4570, 4664, 4672, 4722, 4747, 4750, 4755, 4823, 4968, 5003, 5012,
5051, 5075, 5077, 5149, 5152, 5164, 5166, 5193, 5234, 5237, SCA 161, (SCA) 254,
(SCA) 259, (SCA) 261, (SCA) 262, (SCA) 263, (SCA) 264, (SCA) 279, (SCA) 280,
(SCA) 283, (SCA) 316, (SCA) 331, SCA 338, SCA 339, SCA 374, SCA 386, SCA 393,
SCA 416, SCA 422, SCA 423, SCA 462 (305); (3.b) which have not been further set
(NFS) for a long time, to wit: Criminal Cases (sic) Nos. 13259, 13260, 13792,
14092, 14093, 14375, 15053; and Civil Cases (sic) Nos. 1226 (5057), 3677, 3911,
3985, 4221, 4415, 4480, 4489, 4827, 4924, 4955, 5011, 5126, (SCA) 72, (SCA)
253, (SCA) 257, (SCA) 265, SCA 281, (SCA) 282, SCA 310; (3.c) which have not
been acted upon yet (NATY) since its filing, to wit: Criminal Case No. 18719;
(3.d) as well as the following cases with motions pending action (MPA) by the
court for a long time, to wit: Civil Cases (sic) Nos. 4473 and 5147, SCA 286,
SCA 287, and SCA 313.
B. DECIDE/RESOLVE cases submitted for
decision and those with incidents or motions for resolution which have not yet
been decided nor resolved; x x x.
x x x x
III.. SUBMIT compliance hereof as well as copies of the decisions/resolutions/orders, etc. in the aforecited cases to this Court, through the Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, within fifteen (15) days from rendition/promulgation/issuance or action taken thereof (sic).
In
its Memorandum issued on the same date, the OCA adopted in toto
the recommendation of the audit team.[2]
In
compliance with the above-mentioned directive, respondent Judge submitted his letter-explanation[3]
dated
He
explained that the delay in acting in the cases mentioned in the Report was
caused by the additional judicial assignments given him by the Court, viz:
1. Of September 1, 1998, to hear and decide election protest cases (sic) nos. 19-5, 21-5, 23-5 and 24-5, in RTC Branch 5, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi;
2. Of December 1, 1998, to hear and decide
Civil Case No. 74-3, in RTC, Branch 3, Jolo, Sulu;
3. Of April 13, 1999, to hear and decide
Criminal Case No. 671-5 in RTC Branch 5, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi;
4. Of June 29, 1999, to hear and decide
Criminal Case No. 793-5 in RTC Branch 5, Bongao, Tawi-Tawi;
5. Of June 27, 2001, to hear and decide Criminal
Case No. 2608-413 in RTC Branch 1, Isabela, Basilan Province;
6. Adm. Order No. 111-99 dated
7. En Banc Resolution of January 21, 2002
designating me as Assisting Judge to try and decide cases in RTC Branch 17, Zamboanga City for one year. I was relieved of this
assignment as of
As
he was already relieved of his above assignments, he assured the Office that he
will decide all cases submitted for decision before his compulsory retirement
on
Regarding
the letter-explanation, OCA Lock directed Judge Gutierrez to (a) SUBMIT copies
of the decisions in the enumerated cases as proof of compliance with my
directive within 10 days from notice; and (b) COMPLY fully with my directive in
my subject Memorandum and submit copies of the decisions rendered, resolutions,
orders, etc. issued to the Office through the Court Management Office, within 5
days from date of rendition, issuance, etc.
In
his Letter[4]
dated 24 January 2005, Judge Gutierrez submitted copies of his decisions/orders
(deciding/dismissing) in the following cases, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 9991,
9978 (29 September 2004) ; 13750 (17 May 2004); 14345 (30 September 2004);
Civil Case Nos. 3910 (15 September 2004); 4579 (28 July 2004); 4739 (26
November 1998); 4883 (14 June 2004); 4891 (18 July 2004); 4907 (27 July 2004);
5010 (12 January 2004).
He
further informed the OCA that in an Order dated
As
to SCA Nos. 255 and 315, the said cases were submitted to Atty. Fe C. Maluto, Clerk of Court, OCC,
On
There was no mention of Criminal
Case No. 15863, which is one of the cases mentioned in par. 1 of the
Memorandum, dated
Regarding the other cases, it does
not appear that Judge Gutierrez has submitted compliance with respect to these
cases, in violation of my Memorandum, dated
“(b) COMPLY fully with my directive in my subject Memorandum and submit copies of the decisions rendered, resolutions, orders, etc. issued to the Office through the Court Management Office, within five (5) days from date of rendition, issuance, etc.” (Underscoring supplied)
The aforesaid directive directed him,
to wit:
(2) to resolve the following cases
with incidents or motions which have not been,
resolved in due time, to wit: Civil Cases (sic) Nos. 2080, 4245, 4347,
4383, 4548, 4617, 4898, 4988, 4989, 5069, and 5171; (30 to act on the following
cases: (3.a) which have not been further acted upon (NFA) for a long time
already, to wit: Criminal Cases Nos. 9907, 10603; and Civil Cases Nos. 3297,
3815, 4076, 4085, 4139, 4162, 4370, 4412, 4499, 4570, 4664, 4672, 4722, 4747,
4750, 4755, 4823, 4969, 5003, 5012, 5051, 5075, 5077, 5149, 5152, 5164, 5166,
5193, 5234, 5237, SCA 161, (SCA) 254, (SCA) 259, (SCA) 261, (SCA) 262, (SCA)
263, (SCA) 264, 279, (SCA) 280, (SCA) 283, (SCA) 316, SCA 331, SCA 338, SCA
339, SCA 374, (SCA) 386, (SCA) 393, SCA 416, SCA 422, SCA 423, SCA 462 (305);
(3.b) which have not been further set (NFS) for a long time, to wit: Criminal
Cases Nos. 13259, 13260, 13792, 14092, 1403, 14375, 15053; and Civil Cases Nos.
1226 (5057), 3677, 3911, 3985, 4221, 4415, 4480, 4489, 4827, 4924, 4955, 5011,
5126, (SCA) 72, (SCA) 253, (SCA) 257, (SCA) 265, SCA 281, (SCA) 282, SCA 310;
(3.c) which have not been acted upon yet (NATY) since its filing, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 18719; (3.d) as well as the following cases with motions
pending action (MPA) by the court with motions pending action (MPA) by the
court for a long time, to wit: Civil Cases Nos. 4473 and 5147, SCA 286, SCA
287, and SCA 313.”
The failure of Judge Gutierrez to comply with the other portions of the Memorandum, may be construed as a show of “indifference” or “defiance,” on his part. Time and again, the Supreme Court has ruled that:
“It is hardly necessary to remind respondent that judges should respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, much more the Highest Tribunal of the land from which all other courts should take their bearings. A resolution of the Supreme Court is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. If at all, this omission not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in respondent’s character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court’s lawful orders and directives which is only too deserving of reproof.”
which by analogy, may be made
applicable in this case.
Judge Gutierrez invokes his
additional court assignments for the delay and failure to decide the cases
already submitted for decision, which are already beyond the period to decide,
which he, eventually, albeit belatedly disposed of lately, submitting proof
thereof to the Court. We find the explanation not satisfactory. The reason
espoused by Judge Gutierrez, just like in other similar cases, may not
completely exonerate him. As repeatedly held by this Court, heavy caseload or
the assignment of additional functions do not make a judge less liable for delay.
(A.M. No. RTJ-04-1869, OCA vs. Judge Leticia Q. Ulibarri
citing Gonzales-Decano vs. Siapno
353 SCRA 269, 278). If he could not decide the cases within the reglementary period, he could have asked for extension of
time to decide them. The Court is cognizant of the caseload of the judges and
sympathetic to their request for extension of time. But he did not do so.
Although his inaction was not deliberate, the same may mitigate whatever
liability he may have incurred because of his inaction. Besides, this is his
first offense, which is also a mitigating circumstance. Further, “respondent
Judge’s disposition of numerous cases in previous years, however, serves to
mitigate his liability.”
Undisputedly, Judge Gutierrez failed to decide 2 cases, i.e. Criminal Case No. 15863 and Civil Case No. 5054, and in aggravation thereof, he failed to act on numerous other cases other than those submitted for decision for a considerable period of time. The reason of Judge Gutierrez that the parties failed to submit memorandum is not well taken. Administrative Circular No. 28 dated July 3. 1989 provides that a case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination of the trial. The ninety (90) day period for deciding the case shall commence to run from submission of the case for decision without memoranda, in case the Court allows its filing, the cases shall be considered for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding a case.
“(F)ailure
to decide even a single case within the required period constitutes gross
inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.” In a case, involving about
29 cases submitted for decision which were not decided on time coupled with
inaction regarding some other cases, i.e. cases with motions or incidents
pending resolution a long time ago and several cases which did not proceed for
a considerable period of time, the Court meted a fine of P10,000.00. In
another case, the respondent judge was meted a penalty of P50,000.00 for
gross inefficiency for failure to decide 49 cases within the required period.
He likewise failed to resolve pending incidents: 12 motions, 16 for pre-trial
conference, 8 criminal cases with settings for arraignment, 3 cases with court
compliance, 8 cases with proceedings held in abeyance, 11 cases with pending
warrants of arrest, 5 cases with summons. There were also 21 which were not
acted upon or without further setting despite the lapse of considerable length
of time. In “Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit
Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo; Judge Inocentes D. Deocampo, Presiding
Judge, A.M. No. 97-9-97-MCTC, October 16, 1997, failure of respondent judge to
decide 28 cases is aggravated by his blatant inaction on pending incidents and
motions in cases not submitted for decision, i.e. 4 cases had no further proceedings
for a long time, the concerned judge was meted a fine of P10,000.00.
A judge’s failure to resolve cases
submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious
violation of the right of the litigants to speedy disposition of cases.
Under Sec. 9 (1), Rule 140 of the
Revised Rules of Court, as amended, undue delay in rendering a decision in a
case is a less serious charge that merits, under Section 11 (B) thereof, either
“(s)uspension from office without salary and other benefits
for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months;” or a “fine more than
P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. After considering the
aggravating circumstance, i.e. indifference or defiance to the Memorandum,
dated 16 July 2004 directing him to fully comply with the Memorandum, dated 23
January 2004, which he (Judge Gutierrez) failed to do vis-à-vis a number
mitigating circumstances in the case, i.e. disposition of almost all cases
submitted for decision which are already beyond the period to decide as
directed before his retirement, additional court assignments and this being
Judge Gutierrez’s first offense, a FINE of P11,000.00 be imposed upon
him for undue delay in rendering decisions, resolve numerous incidents or
motions and to act on a number of cases beyond what is reasonable time from the
last action taken.
Accordingly, the OCA recommended that:
In view of the foregoing, it is most respectfully submitted that: (1) the case be docketed as a regular administrative matter against Judge Ernesto R. Gutierrez, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City; and (2) a fine in the amount of P11,000.00 be imposed upon him to be deducted from the proceeds of his retirement pay.
On
On
On
We
agree in the findings of the OCA.
The Supreme Court has consistently
impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on
the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Failure to resolve cases
submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious
violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of
their cases.[9]
The office of the judge exacts
nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the
discharge of official duties.[10]
Section15 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates that cases or matters
filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months
from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. Moreover, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct directs judges to “dispose of the court’s business promptly
and decide cases within the required periods.” Judges must closely adhere to
the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to preserve the integrity, competence,
and independence of the judiciary and make the administration of justice more
efficient.[11] Time and again, we have stressed the need to
strictly observe this duty so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not
totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion and delay that have long
plagued our courts. Finally, Canons 6
and 7 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics exhorts judges to be prompt and punctual
in the disposition and resolution of cases and matters pending before their
courts, to wit:
6.
PROMPTNESS
He should be prompt
in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed
is often justice denied.
7.
PUNCTUALITY
He should be punctual in the performance of his judicial duties, recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses, and attorneys is of value and that if the judge is unpunctual in his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice.
Parenthetically, Administrative Circular
No. 1 dated
We cannot overstress this policy on
prompt disposition or resolution of cases. Delay in case disposition is a major
culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judiciary and the
lowering of its standards.[12]
Failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, without strong and justifiable reason,
constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative
sanction on the defaulting judge.[13]
In the case at bar, respondent Judge
failed 1) to decide Criminal Case No. 15863 and Civil Case No. 5054; 2) to
resolve the following cases which have
pending incidents or motions, to wit: Civil Case Nos. 2080, 4245, 4347, 4383,
4548, 4617, 4898, 4988, 4989, 5069, and 5171; (3) to act on the following
cases: (3.a) which have not been further acted upon (NFA) for a long time
already, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 9907, 10603; and Civil Case 3297, 3815,
4076, 4085, 4139, 4162, 4364, 4370, 4412, 4499, 4570, 4664, 4672, 4722, 4747,
4750, 4755, 4823, 4968, 5003, 5012, 5051, 5075, 5077, 5149, 5152, 5164, 5166,
5193, 5234, 5237, SCA 161, (SCA) 254, (SCA) 259, (SCA) 261, (SCA) 262, (SCA)
263, (SCA) 264, (SCA) 279, (SCA) 280, (SCA) 283, (SCA) 316, (SCA) 331, SCA 338,
SCA 339, SCA 374, SCA 386, SCA 393, SCA 416, SCA 422, SCA 423, SCA 462 (305);
(3.b) which have not been further set (NFS) for a long time, to wit: Criminal
Case Nos. 13259, 13260, 13792, 14092, 14093, 14375, 15053; and Civil Case Nos.
1226 (5057), 3677, 3911, 3985, 4221, 4415, 4480, 4489, 4827, 4924, 4955, 5011,
5126, (SCA) 72, (SCA) 253, (SCA) 257, (SCA) 265, SCA 281, (SCA) 282, SCA 310;
(3.c) which have not been acted upon yet (NATY) since its filing, to wit:
Criminal Case No. 18719; (3.d) as well as the following cases with motions
pending action (MPA) by the court for a long time, to wit: Civil Case Nos. 4473
and 5147, SCA 286, SCA 287, and SCA 313.
Respondent Judge has not only
miserably failed in his duties to dispose of cases promptly and expeditiously
but also remained resolute in not complying with the directives of not just one
but several resolutions issued by this Court.
The reasons cited by respondent Judge
for failing to promptly act on and resolve the aforecited
cases are not acceptable.
Firstly, we reject respondent Judge
explanation that his failure to decide Criminal case No. 15863 and Civil Case
No. 5054 was due to the failure of the parties to submit their memoranda. The filing of the memoranda containing the
summary of issues litigated and proved is not indispensable in the resolution
of pending cases. It is respondent Judge’s
obligation as a trial judge to take down notes during the trial to assist in
the prompt disposition of cases without awaiting and relying on the memoranda
of the parties.[14]
Secondly, we likewise reject
respondent Judge’s contention that additional court assignments and heavy
caseload prevented him from disposing the cases timely.
The additional court assignments or
designations imposed upon respondent Judge does not make him less liable for
the delay.[15] In In Re: Administrative
Matter No. MTJ-99-118,[16]
we held:
That
respondent Judge had to attend to other courts will not save him from
administrative sanction. In Perez v. Andaya [286 SCRA 40 (1998)], we held a similar
contention unmeritorious, quoting the recommendation of the Investigating
Justice with favor thus:
Respondent judge’s argument that on September 29, 1993, he was designated acting presiding judge of (the) RTC, Branch 54, in Lucena City, and has been carrying (the) heavy case load of two salas, and lately designated to hear heinous crimes, should not be made as basis for excuses at this point in time when the judiciary is under siege upon which the judge should give complete and dedicated support of his primary and fundamental task to restore full confidence of our people in the courts.
Likewise in Re: Report of Justice Felipe B. Kalalo:
“x x x The additional assignment of Judge Angeles should not have deterred him from disposing off the twenty-two criminal cases pending before him. All he had to do was to request from this Court a reasonable extension of time to resolve the cases.”
Indeed, respondent Judge should have known that if his caseload prevented the disposition of cases within the reglementary period, all he had to do was to ask from this Court for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the cases involved. The Court, cognizant of the caseload of judges and mindful of the difficulty encountered by them in the seasonable disposition of cases, would almost always grant the request.
We are aware of the heavy caseload of
trial courts, hence, we allow reasonable extensions of time to decide cases. A judge cannot by himself choose to prolong
the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Without any order
of extension granted by this Court, failure to decide even a single case within
the required period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative
sanction.[17] To repeat, granting that it becomes
unavoidable to render a decision or resolve a matter beyond the reglementary period, respondent Judge could have sought
additional time by simply filing a request for extension. Respondent Judge,
however, did not make use of this remedy.
Thus, the heavy caseload, and failure to decide cases due to failure of
parties to submit memoranda, can neither exempt him from due observance of the
rules nor exonerate him from his administrative liability. They can only serve
to mitigate the imposable penalty.[18]
Under
Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court as amended, undue delay in
rendering a decision is classified as a less serious charge. Section 11(b) of
the same Rule states that the penalty for such a charge is suspension from
office without salary and other benefits
for not less than one (1) nor more than three
(3) months, or a fine of more than Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) but
not exceeding Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
Considering that respondent Judge
retired on P15,000.00) PESOS which we deem reasonable, is imposed upon
him.
WHEREFORE, respondent retired Judge Ernesto
R. Gutierrez is found LIABLE for undue delay in rendering judgment which is
equivalent to GROSS INEFFICIENCY. He is
ordered to pay a FINE of P15,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
|
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIOAssociate Justice |
WE
CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
Associate Justice Associate
Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
ROMEO J.
CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo, pp. 104-105.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Cases in
RTC-Br. 138,
[10] RE:
Report of Deputy Court AdministratorBernardo T. Ponferada Re Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch
26, Argao,
[11] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Javellana, A. M.
No. RTJ-02-1737,
[12] Re: Report of Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferada Re Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 26, Argao, Cebu, supra note 10, p. 133.
[13] Celino v. Judge Abrogar, 315 Phil. 305, 312 (1995).
[14] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Joven, 447 Phil. 86, 94 (2003).
[15] Gonzales-Decano v. Siapno, A.M. No.
MTJ-00-1279,
[16] 371 Phil. 131, 138-139 (1999).
[17] Saceda v. Gesropa, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1303,
[18] Re: Report of Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferada Re Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 26, Argao, Cebu, supra note 13, p. 132; Re: Judge Liberato C. Cortes, A.M. No. 94-6-189-RTC, 7 March 1995, 242 SCRA 167, 169.