EN BANC
|
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, - versus - JUDGE ZENAIDA
L. GALVEZ and CLERK OF
COURT EUGENIO STO. TOMAS, Municipal Trial Court, Cabuyao, Laguna. Respondents. |
A.M. No. MTJ-03-1472 (Formerly A.M. No.
02-10-271-MTC) Present: PUNO, C.J. QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO-MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO, GARCIA, VELASCO, JR., NACHURA, and REYES,
JJ. Promulgated:
|
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
D E C I S
I O N
GARCIA, J.:
An
administrative complaint was filed by the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) against Judge Zenaida L. Galvez and Clerk of
Court Eugenio Sto. Tomas, both of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao,
Laguna on account of the adverse separate reports of the OCA’s Judicial and
Audit teams dated July 5, 2002[1] and August 30, 2002,[2] respectively, about said
court.
Acting on those
reports, the OCA, in its Memorandum Report[3] dated October 11, 2002 to
then Chief Justice Hilario C. Davide, Jr., recommended, among others, that: (1) Judge Galvez be directed to explain
within ten days from notice why no administrative sanction should be imposed
upon her for: (a) failure to decide some 31 criminal cases and 66 civil cases despite
the lapse of the reglementary period therefor;[4] (b) failure to resolve motions/incidents
in some criminal and civil cases within the prescribed period;[5] (c) failure to take further
appropriate action for an unreasonable length of time on criminal cases under
preliminary investigation which are cognizable by the Regional Trial Court as
well as by the MTC, some of which have been pending for preliminary
investigation for several years already;[6] (d) failure to set, for
quite a long time, the cases for arraignment after the accused therein had posted
their bailbonds;[7] and (e) failure to take
initial action such as issuance of subpoenas and summonses;[8] and (2) Acting Presiding Judge Alden V. Cervantes (now herein made
respondent) be directed to decide/resolve those cases, motions and incidents left
undecided/unresolved by Judge Galvez and to make a physical inventory of all
cases pending in the said court with the
assistance of the OIC;
Pursuant to the
OCA’s aforesaid Memorandum Report, the Court issued a
Resolution on January 22, 2003, directing Acting Presiding Judge Alden V.
Cervantes to conduct, within 10 days
from notice, a physical inventory of all cases filed and pending before the subject
court, and to submit a report thereon within thirty (30) days from notice,
thus:
(5)
DIRECT Hon. Alden V. Cervantes, Acting Presiding Judge, MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna,
to:
(a)
INFORM the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) whether the 31 criminal and 66 civil cases left
undecided by Judge Zenaida Galvez aforementioned in item 2(a) and the pending
unresolved 13 motions/incidents aforestated in item 2(b) have already been
decided and resolved respectively, if not, to DECIDE said cases and RESOLVE
said motions/incidents within ninety (90) days from notice and thereafter to
furnish this office certified copies of the decisions/resolutions/orders within
ten (10) days from promulgation/rendition/issuance thereof;
(b)
INFORM the
Court through the
Office of the Court Administrator whether the court
has already taken action on
the cases mentioned in
item 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e) and if
not, to take APPROPRIATE ACTION on said cases giving PREFERENTIAL ATTENTION on
these unacted criminal cases which up to date of audit is pending preliminary
investigation as well as those which have not been set for arraignment and
unacted motions in civil cases;
(c)
ARCHIVE those criminal cases
where the accused has remained at large for more than 6 months from issuance of
warrants of arrest and civil cases where the defendants failed to answer for
more than 6 months from issuance thereof pursuant to Administrative Circular
No. 7-A-92, as amended dated June 21, 1993;
(d)
CONDUCT a physical inventory
of all cases pending in said court with the assistance of the
Officer-in-Charge, within ten (10) days from notice hereof and submit a report
thereon within thirty (30) days from notice.[9]
However,
after more than a year had lapsed, Acting Presiding Judge Cervantes failed to
comply with the foregoing directives. Hence,
the OCA issued a memorandum to him reiterating the Court's directives and
required his immediate compliance. Acting Presiding Judge Cervantes, together
with Mrs. Elvira B. Manlegro, Acting Clerk of Court, and Mrs. Amelia D. Teñido,
Clerk II and former Acting Clerk of Court, was likewise directed to submit to
the Statistic Reports Division, Court Management Office-OCA, within one (1)
month from notice thereof, the lacking Docket Inventory Reports and Monthly
Reports of Cases which should include the data of those cases that had been
pending and/or filed before October 1, 2001.
In addition, Mrs. Teñido was also directed to assist Judge Cervantes and
Mrs. Manlegro in the conduct of physical inventory of cases and in the
preparation of the report.
Again,
despite repeated directives, both verbal and written, Acting Presiding Judge
Cervantes deferred the submission of the physical inventory of cases and the complete
and accurate Monthly Reports of Cases and Docket Inventory Reports by semester,
as directed in our Resolution.
In somewhat
apathetic attitude, Judge Cervantes and the two other court personnel
repeatedly attempted to submit, through their utility worker, incomplete and
inaccurate Monthly Reports of Cases, the latest of which is a combined Docket
Inventory Report for the period from January 1 to April 2004 instead of Docket
Inventory Reports by semester. Not being in conformity with the prescribed
forms, the reports were returned with reminders for Mrs. Manlegro and Mrs.
Teñido to prepare their reports properly, accurately and in the prescribed
forms before re-submitting the same to the Statistic Reports Division. Regrettably, the reminders fell on deaf ears.[10]
On
(a) to IMMEDIATELY WITHHOLD the salaries and
allowances of Hon. Alden V. Cervantes, Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal
Trial Court, Cabuyao, Laguna and Acting Clerk of Court Elvira B. Manlegro and
former Officer-in-Charge Amelia D. Teñido, also of the Municipal Trial Court,
Cabuyao, Laguna; and
(b) to DIRECT
Judge Alden V. Cervantes, Mrs. Elvira B. Manlegro and Mrs. Amelia D.
Teñido:
(1) to SUBMIT
the required complete and accurate Monthly Reports of Cases corresponding
to the months from October 2001 up to August 2004 and Docket Inventory Reports
by semester for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003; and
(2) to EXPLAIN
in writing, within thirty (30) days from notice, why they should not be
administratively charged for their failure to religiously comply with
Administrative Circular No. 61-2001 dated December 10, 2001, Administrative
Circular No. 4-2004 dated February 4, 2004 and Administrative Circular No.
10-94 dated June 29, 1994 as amended by Administrative Circular No. 2-2001
dated January 2, 2001, and to COMPLY with the directives in the Resolution
dated January 22, 2003 of the SC First Division in this case.
Acting
Presiding Judge Cervantes moved for a reconsideration of said Resolution which
immediately withheld his salaries and allowances and those of Acting Clerk of
Court Manlegro and former OIC Clerk of Court Teñido. The Court then referred said letter to the
OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
In due
time, the OCA came out with its findings, recommending that Acting Presiding
Judge Cervantes be charged with gross neglect of judicial duty, inefficiency in
the performance of official functions and indifference to his responsibility
concerning speedy disposition of cases.
The pertinent portions of the OCA report are hereunder quoted, thus:
In
a letter dated 20 September 2006, Judge Alden V. Cervantes, former presiding judge, Municipal Trial Court
(MTC), Alaminos, Laguna and former acting presiding judge, MTC, Cabuyao,
Laguna, requests that he be relieved of the task of submitting the revised
docket inventory of cases for MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna for the years 2001, 2002,
2003 and 2004.
He
avers that he could no longer comply with the directive considering that he had
already retired from the service and that a permanent presiding judge had
already been appointed at MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna in the person of Judge Conrado
L. Zumaraga. Judge Zumaraga was
appointed on
Judge
Cervantes contends that prior to his retirement, he has already submitted the docket
inventory of cases for the years 2001 to 2004.
The Court Management Office, OCA, however found discrepancies in the
docket inventories submitted and required the court personnel concerned to
undertake revisions thereon. He notes
that the preparation and completion of the docket inventories were overtaken by
his retirement on
Judge
Cervantes admits his failure to submit the correct docket inventories and asks
forgiveness from the court. He suggests
that instead of requiring him to comply with the directive, he instead be
required to pay a fine for his failure.
He requests that his retirement benefits be released to him and the
corresponding fine covering the penalty be deducted from his retirement
benefits because he does not have ready money in his possession to pay the
fine.
It
is noted that Judge Cervantes applied for optional retirement without first
complying with the Court resolution dated
Moreover,
before he could be given a clearance by this Office, the clerk of court of MTC,
Cabuyao, Laguna was directed to submit a list of all the cases left
undecided/unresolved by Judge Cervantes.
In compliance with the directive, Clerk of Court Arlyn A. Hermano
submitted a report on
The
report revealed that Judge Cervantes left unresolved one hundred sixty-five
(165) cases for preliminary investigation.
These were all submitted before him for resolution but were resolved by
Judge Conrado Zumaraga, the incumbent presiding judge. Likewise, Judge Cervantes left undecided
fifty-four (54) cases submitted for decision.
These include cases he inherited from Judge Zenaida L. Galvez, his
predecessor. Four of these cases had already been decided by Judge Zumaraga.
It
can be observed from the list submitted by the clerk of court of MTC, Cabuyao,
Laguna that with respect to the cases for preliminary investigation, there were
even cases submitted for resolution as early as March 2002. Some cases were filed as early as
It
is noted that in the resolution dated 30 August 2005 in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC Re:
Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by
removing the conduct of preliminary investigation from judges of the first
level courts, the Court ruled that all first level courts shall continue with the
preliminary investigation of cases pending with them and terminate them not
later than 31 December 2005. The
resolution which took effect on
Judge
Cervantes not only failed to resolve the cases for preliminary investigation
pending before him as mandated by the resolution, he was already in delay with
respect to the majority of the cases already submitted for resolution. In fact, his application for optional
retirement indicates that he evaded acting on these cases.
Records
reveal that it was Judge Zumaraga who resolved all the cases for preliminary
investigation left unresolved by Judge Cervantes. It was also only during the time of Judge
Zumaraga that the correct docket inventories and monthly reports of cases were
submitted. Records further reveal that
MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna is now submitting regularly their updated semestral docket
inventories and monthly reports of cases.
xxx xxx xxx
Judge
Cervantes was evidently remiss in the performance of his duty to decide/resolve
cases promptly and expeditiously. He was
designated as acting presiding judge of MTC, Cabuyao on
We
also note that Judge Cervantes had been continually collecting his salaries
upon certification that he had no pending cases for decision/resolution, when
in fact, a lot of cases are still awaiting his decisions/resolutions. His act seriously undermines and reflects on
the honesty and integrity expected upon officers of the court. xxx
The OCA accordingly recommended that Acting
Presiding Judge Alden V. Cervantes be ordered to pay a fine of two hundred thousand
(P200,000.00) pesos to be deducted from his retirement benefits. It also recommended that the resolution dated
May 3, 2005 directing Judge Cervantes to submit the required complete and
accurate monthly reports of cases corresponding to the months from October 1,
2001 to August 2004 and docket inventory reports by semester for the years
2001, 2002 and 2003 be set aside, considering that Judge Conrado L. Zumaraga
had already submitted the same. Further,
the OCA recommended that Judge Zumaraga be commended
for his earnest effort to decide/resolve cases left undecided/ unresolved by
his predecessors and for updating the semestral docket inventories and monthly
reports of cases in his court.
The Court accepts and
adopts the foregoing evaluation, report and recommendation of the OCA, except
as to the amount of the fine.
This Court has consistently
impressed upon members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and
expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice
denied. Delay in the disposition of
cases not only deprives litigants of their right to the speedy disposition of
their cases, but it also tarnishes the image of the judiciary. Failure to decide cases on time constitutes
inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.[11]
No less than the Constitution requires
lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters submitted for decision or
resolution within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or
resolution.[12] Likewise, the Code of Judicial Conduct enunciates
that judges should administer justice without delay, and directs every judge to
dispose of the court's business promptly within the period prescribed by law
and the rules.[13] A judge is mandated by the Constitution to
render judgment and resolve pending incidents not more than 90 days from the
time the case is submitted for resolution.
The report dated
Aside from Judge Cervantes’
gross neglect of duty and inefficiency in the performance of his official duty,
the Court likewise finds reason to wield disciplinary sanction on his
indifference to the directive of the Court as well as of the OCA. In his letter dated
In Guerrero v. Deray,[14] we held:
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.
Thus, in one case
(Davila v. Generoso, 336 SCRA 576, 580), the failure of respondent judge to
comply with the show-cause resolutions of the Court was deemed “grave and
serious misconduct affecting his fitness and worthiness of the honor and
integrity attached to his office.” In Alonto-Frayna
v. Astih (300 SCRA 199, 202-203), we further held:
A judge who deliberately
and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of this Court is guilty of gross misconduct and
insubordination. It is gross
misconduct and even outright disrespect
for this Court for respondent to exhibit indifference to the resolutions
requiring him to comment on the accusations contained in the complaint against
him.
In other words,
indifference or defiance to the Court’s orders or resolutions may be punished
with dismissal, suspension or fine as warranted by the circumstances (Pineda
E.L., Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1999
ed., p. 423).
All told, the
Court finds Judge
Cervantes guilty of gross neglect of judicial duty and inefficiency in the performance of official
function, for his failure to resolve/decide
the preliminary investigation/cases within the period fixed
by law. He is likewise guilty of gross misconduct for his callous disregard of this Court’s previous Resolutions dated P200,000.00) is too harsh.
Hence, we reduce it to only one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
1.)
Acting Presiding Judge
Alden V. Cervantes of the MTC of Cabuyao, Laguna is found guilty of gross
neglect of judicial duty, inefficiency
in the performance of official functions and gross misconduct, and is hereby
ordered to pay a FINE of one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to be
deducted from his retirement benefits.
2.)
The Resolution dated
SO ORDERED.
CANCIO C. GARCIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
|
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice
|
|
ANGELINA
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ Associate Justice
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
|
MA.
ALICIA M. AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice
|
RENATO
C. CORONA Associate Justice
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice |
ADOLFO
S. AZCUNA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE
O. TINGA Associate Justice
|
MINITA
V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice
|
|
PRESBITERO
J. VELASCO, JR. Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
|
RUBEN
T. REYES Associate Justice |
|
[1] Rollo,
pp. 9-33.
[2]
[3]
[4] In
Criminal Case Nos. 5257, 5318, 4303 to 4311, 5075, 5276 to 5287, 5049, 4333, 4334,
5498, 4727, 5085 and 5338; and Civil Case Nos. 653 to 655, 648, 427, 413, 517,
718, 642 to 646, 634, 611, 539, 394, 481, 522, 747, 581, 489, 490, 514, 660,
662, 651, 665 and 631 including the following ejectment cases, to wit: Civil Case Nos. 712, 717, 711, 627, 628, 629,
530, 792, 760, 762, 765, 782, 785, 771, 772, 773, 774, 753, 332, 351, 354, 355,
392, 406, 482, 241, 249, 251, 421, 713, 714, 716, 710, 709, 708 and 666 which
are governed by the rules on summary procedure.
[5] In
Criminal Case Nos. 6426, 6427 and 6428 (Motion to Quash), 4084 (Accused’s
Formal Offer of Exhibits), 4832 and 4923 (Complainant’s Formal Offer of
Evidence), 4597 (Motion For Reconsideration/Motion to Quash), 7006 (Motion for
Reconsideration with Prayer to Lift Order of Arrest), 6113 (Motion to Admit
Pre-Trial Order), 7378 (Motion to Withdraw Exhibits) and 7011 (Motion to Quash);
and Civil Case Nos. 761 (Urgent Motion to Withdraw Complaint) and 714 (Motion
for Reconsideration of Orders denying Motion to Dismiss).
[6] In
Case Nos. 3839, 6474, 6669, 6884, 6779, 5978, 5533, 6899, 7018, 6997, 3982,
7003, 6906, 7206, 6816, 6817, 6826, 6808, 6914, 6885, 6913, 5929, 5014, 7227,
7087, 7088, 7089, 7027, 7020, 6993, 6953, 6942, 7099, 7098, 6911, 6905, 6897,
6824, 6850, 6833, 7090, 7091, 6267, 6264, 6231, 4593, 6590, 6226, 6225, 6241,
6746, 4003, 6591, 4088, 4089, 5314, 5268, 4046, 6035, 6105, 5738, 6420, 6543,
6108, 6066, 6419, 6524, 6525, 6351, 6299, 6185, 6002, 7203, 7306, 6071, 6675,
6561, 6500, 6707, 6917, 6918, 4855, 6676, 6568, 6570, 6528, 7009, 7190, 6838,
7031, 7019, 6269, 5181, 5539, 5148, 4005, 4394 and 6641 (offenses cognizable by
the RTC); and 4394, 5181, 5148, 5539, 6269, 6641 and 6737 (offenses cognizable
by the MTC).
[7] In
Criminal Case Nos. 7055, 6984, 7210, 6985, 7224, 7008, 4708, 6823, 7142, 7444,
7445, 7398, 7195, 7196, 7239, 7499, 7523, 7249, 7248, 7284, 6852, 6833, 6899,
6939, 6242, 6710, 6728, 7149, 7197, 7199, 7207, 7209, 7219, 3581, 3923 and 6732
and in Criminal Case Nos. 6591, 6049, 6050, 6051, 6052 and 6953 where Judge
Galvez had not acted on the Affidavit of Desistance filed by the private
complainant.
[8] In
Criminal Case Nos. 7428, 5966, 4951, 4833, 6080, 5951, 5465, 7396, 7397, 6588,
4297, 6899, 6137, (Pp v. Alcantara, Less
Serious Physical Injuries), 6137 (Pp. v. Orbina, Viol. of PD 1602), 6680, 6731
(Pp v. Galinao, Viol. of PD 1602), 6732, 6733 (Pp v. Ilag, Viol. of PD 1602),
6733 (Pp v. Palmores, Viol. of PD 1602), 6734 (Pp v. Capuchino, Viol. of PD
1602), 6734 (Pp v. Mantis, Viol. of PD 1602), 6747, 6829, 6834, 6981 (Pp v.
Bernardo, Serious Physical Injuries), 6981 (Pp v. Galang, Viol. of PD 1602),
6510, 6511, 7108, 7024 and 7032 and issuance of summonses in Civil Case Nos.
686, 487 and 291 since these cases were filed.
[9] Rollo,
pp. 49-50.
[10]
[11] Report on the On-the-Spot Judicial Audit
Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 45 and 53,
[12] Article
VIII, Section 15 (1) of the Constitution.
[13] Rule
1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
[14] A.M.
No. MTJ-02-1466,