EN BANC
|
RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 14, PAUL L. CANSINO, - versus - JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT (RTC), BRANCH 14, DEVELOPMENT BANK OF THE - versus - JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE, REGIONAL TRIAL
COURT (RTC), BRANCH 14, |
|
A.M. RTJ-07-2039 (formerly A.M. No. 05-1-37- RTC) A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2055-RTJ A.M. No. 05-2177-RTJ Present: PUNO, C.J., QUISUMBING, YNARES-SANTIAGO, CARPIO, AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, CARPIO
MORALES, AZCUNA, TINGA, CHICO-NAZARIO,
VELASCO,
JR., NACHURA, REYES, LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: April 14, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
On
Previous to this administrative case,
several administrative complaints were already filed against respondent Judge
William M. Layague, two (2) of which were: (a) A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2055-RTJ,
entitled Paul L. Cansino v. Judge William
M. Layague, RTC, Branch 14, Davao City, charging the latter with
inefficiency and delay in the disposition of cases in connection with the two
(2) separate criminal informations, docketed as Criminal Case Nos. 45,973-2000
and 45,974-2000, for Malversation and Illegal Exaction, respectively; and (b) A.M. No. 05-2177-RTJ, entitled Development Bank of the Philippines v. Judge
William M. Layague, RTC, Branch 14, Davao City, also charging herein
respondent judge with inefficiency and grave misconduct relative to Civil Case
No. 29,386-02, for specific performance, damages, etc. with urgent prayer for
the issuance of a restraining order and writ of prohibition. These three (3) cases were later on
consolidated. However, in our Resolution
dated
After the audit team had submitted
its report, the OCA issued a Memorandum Report[2]
addressed to the then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., informing the Court
that since the last audit in 1996 of RTC, Branch 14 of Davao City, respondent
Judge Layague had accumulated a total of 83
cases (inclusive of one inherited case) submitted for decision already beyond
the reglementary period to decide. These
did not include the 230 cases submitted
for resolution which were already beyond the reglementary period to resolve, 93 cases with no further action, 19 cases with no further settings and 9
cases with no action taken yet since the filing thereof.
The Report revealed that respondent
judge incurred several absences from 1996 to 2004 as a result of his poor
health, as shown by the latter’s medical certificates, which adversely affected
his work efficiency. Quoted hereunder is
the account of the audit team regarding respondent judge’s various illnesses:[3]
Also, Judge Layague is suffering from various illnesses which admittedly has slowed down his work.
Information
as well as the records show that, since the early 70’s, Judge Layague has
already been saddled with various illnesses which he attributes to his slow
disposal and resolution of cases. In
1974, he had his gall bladder surgically removed. In 1976, he developed duodenal ulcer for
which he underwent treatment for three months.
In January 1995, he was diagnosed with emphysema and since then he had
been suffering from numbness in the lower extremities and acute erosive and
atrophic gastritis. In 1998, he was
hospitalized for vertigo (Menier’s Syndrome).
He also suffers from Goiter (Thyroid Nodule); including Benign Prostatic
Hypertrophy, Hypercholesterolemia, acute gastritis with Gastro Esophageal Reflux
Disease, Systemic Viral Illness and Musculoskeletal Pain. In addition, and just lately, it appears from
the Certification, dated
Accordingly,
the OCA recommended the appointment of an assisting judge to hear, try and
decide the cases in said sala at least twice a week until respondent judge has
decided/resolved all cases submitted for decision/resolution which have not
been decided/resolved or until further orders from this Court.
Acting on the said Memorandum Report and
the Recommendation of the Court Administrator, this Court issued an en banc Resolution dated
(a) DIRECT Hon. William M. Layague, Presiding Judge, RTC,
1. to
EXPLAIN in writing, within the period mentioned in par. (A), subpar. 3,
in connection with par. (D) below, why no administrative sanction should be
taken against him for: (a)
failure to decide the following cases which are already beyond the reglementary
period to decide, to wit: Criminal Cases Nos. 30,811; 34,403; 36,954;
37,841; 38,573; 38,790; 39,088; 39,337; 39,338; 39,339; 39,340; 39,341; 40,094;
41,092; 41,643; 42,138; 42,139; 42,140; 42,651; 42,695; 43,003; 44,929; 44,930;
44,931; 44,932; 45,238; 45,239; 45,240; 46,750; 47,828; 48,976; 50,739; 51,747;
51,748; 51,749; 51,750; 97,370; 97,371; 97,372; 97,373; 52,369; and Civil Cases Nos. 049; 12,271; 19,835;
20,097; 21,329; 22,687; 23,263; 23,323; 24,480; 24,502; 24,610; 24,930; 25,104;
25,110; 25,206; 25,232; 25,411; 25,542; 25,663; 25,912; 26,457; 27,050; 27,097;
27,112; 27,511; 28,073; 28,172; 28,481; 28,549; 28,577; 28,695; 28,842; 28,958;
29,033; 29,093; 29,224; 29,240; 29,512; 29,551; 29,648; 30,087; 30,340; 54,140; (b) failure to resolve the following cases which have not
been resolved with (sic) the
reglementary period, to wit: Criminal Cases Nos. 5186; 24,854; 24,855;
26,888; 27,011; 31,181; 31,436; 31,437; 34,403; 34,534; 35,917; 36,953; 37,089;
37,090; 37,100; 37,347; 37,348; 37,349; 37,350; 37,351; 37,352; 37,353; 37,354;
38,542; 38,875; 38,876; 38,877; 38,878; 39,688; 39,812; 39,986; 40,084; 40,391;
40,953; 41,460; 41,538; 41,539; 41,619; 41,657; 41,658; 42,197; 42.198; 42,336;
42,337; 42,338; 42,339; 42,340; 42,341; 42,619; 42,705; 42,816; 42,817; 42,818;
43,756; 43,822; 44,139; 44,466; 44,749; 44,807; 44,952; 44, 955 (sic);
44,953; 44,954; 44,955; 44,956; 44,957;
44,958; 44,959; 44,960; 44,961; 44,962; 45,122; 45,973; 45,974; 46,034; 46,155;
46,192; 46,193; 46,194; 46,195; 46,196; 46,197; 46,198; 46,199; 46,200; 46,201;
46,202; 46,361; 46,362; 46,363; 46,364; 46,365; 46,366; 46,367; 46,368; 46,369;
46,370; 46,371; 46,372; 46,373; 46,374; 46,375; 46,376; 46,377; 46,378; 46,379;
46,380; 46,381; 47,028; 47,362; 47,661; 48,217; 48,608; 48,627; 48,719; 48,771;
48,772; 49,079; 49,080; 49,081; 49,082; 49,083; 49,084; 49,085; 49,086; 49,087;
49,088; 49,089; 49,090; 49,091; 49,092; 49,093; 49,094; 49,095; 49,096; 49,097;
49,098; 49,099; 49,100; 49,101; 49,102; 49,103; 49,104; 49,105; 49,106; 49,107;
50,143; 51,165; 52,011; 52,779; 53,565; 53,657; 53,713; 53,714; 53,715; 54,037;
54.038; 54,054; and Civil
Cases Nos. 024; 2933; 17,670; 22,603;
22,993; 23,224; 23,471; 23,675; 24,328; 24,541; 24,714; 24,875; 24,969; 25,165;
25,513; 25,589; 25,694; 25,732; 26,254; 26,304; 26,322; 26,356; 26,552; 26,694;
26,775; 26,873; 26,899; 27,298; 27,271; 27,304; 27,309; 27,335; 27,340; 27,355;
27,408; 27,424; 27,526; 27,652; 27,670; 27,820; 27,838; 27,845; 27,981; 28,003;
28,037; 28,127; 28,192; 28,335; 28,401;
28,501; 28,572; 28,822; 28,871; 29,085; 29,162; 29,253; 29,302; 29,353; 29,383;
29,386; 29,552; 29,732; 29,801; 30,028; 30,253; SP 4319; SP 5640; SP 28,099;
LRC 044; and (c) failure to
take appropriate action on the following cases, to wit: Criminal Cases Nos.
30,303; 33,438; 33,439; 33,440; 33,441; 33,657; 33,658; 33659; 38,558; 40,119;
39,706; 40,888; 41,953; 43,894; 44,078; 44,531; 44,595; 45,162; 45,163; 45,179;
45,209; 45,694; 45,954; 46,488; 46,489; 46,490; 46,495; 46,728; 46,860; 47,180;
48,585; 48,892; 48,906; 49,165; 49,757; 49,836; 50,626; 50,794; 51,973; 52,105;
52,334; 52,406; 52,749; 52,832; 52,857; 52,996; 53,079; 53,476; 53,477;
53,478; 53,479; 53,480; 53,481; 53,482;
53,483; 53,484; 53,485; 53,486;
53,487; 53,549; and Civil
Cases Nos. 018; 2884; 5926; 7404; 10,790; 15,852; 15,853; 15,854; 15,855;
15,856; 16,269; 19,246; 20,973; 22,266; 22,291, 22,397; 23,059; 23,467;
23,776; 24,072; 24,178; 24,634; 24,866; 24,879; 24,889; 24,892; 24,897; 25,089;
25,132; 25,159; 25,222; 25,274; 25,358; 25,377; 25,409; 25,430; 25,558; 25,570;
25,574; 25,624; 25,698; 25,797; 25,866; 25,871; 25,952; 26,100; 26,244; 26,320;
26,556; 26,704; 26,786; 26,920; 26,996; 27,027; 27,038 27,115; 27,214; 27,243;
27,429; 27,449; 27,460; 27,476; 27,499; 27,534; 27,551; 27,552; 27,553; 27,666;
27,709; 27,715; 27,776; 27,798; 27,801; 27,847; 27,895; 27,911; 27,982; 27,984;
28,082 28,162; 28,224; 28,343; 28,364; 28,383; 28,460; 28,469; 28,565; 28,567;
28,623; 28,674; 28,702; 28,768; 28,773; 28,818; 28,901; 28,930; 28,935; 28,962;
28,660; 29,012; 29,017; 29,076; 29,079; 29,111; 29,150; 29,152; 29,190; 29,191;
29,250; 29,285; 29,392; 29,402; 29,435; 29,538; 29,598; 29,629; 29,684; 29,746;
29,787; 29,792; 29,812; 29,821; 29,850; 29,910; 29,925; 30,007; 30,052; 30,101;
30,255; SCA 17,308; SP 3451; SP 4284; SP 7159, which have not been further
acted (NFA) upon for a considerable length of time since the last action taken
thereon; as well as the following cases, to wit: Criminal Cases Nos. 42,665;
50,261; 52,630; and Civil Cases Nos. 24,342; 24,343; 24,344; 24,529;
25,110; 26,635; 26,729; 26,806; 26,890; 27,375; 28,060; 28,089; 28,463; 28,481;
28,892; SP 22,052, which have not been further set (NFS) for a considerable
length of time since the last settings made thereon.
2. to INFORM the Court,
though the Office of DCA C.O. Lock,
whether the following cases were decided within the reglementary period,
to wit: Criminal Cases Nos. 36,047; 42,164; 43,689; 43,858; 43,859;
47,600; 47,601; 51,742; Civil Cases Nos. 238; 268; 278; 24,434; 30,002 and SP 7293; and, in case he has not yet
so decided, for him to do so; and
3. to IMMEDIATELY CEASE from
hearing cases in his sala and confine himself to the following tasks, to wit:
to DECIDE and RESOLVE, as the
case may be, the cases mentioned under par. (A), subpar. 1 (a) and (b); and
2 WITHIN NINETY (90) DAYS from notice.
4. to SUBMIT himself for a
medical examination to determine whether or not he is still capable of
performing the functions of his office. In this connection, a Medical team from
the Supreme Court Medical Services be AUTHORIZED to conduct the medical
examination of Judge Layague for the purpose.
(b)
DESIGNATE
Hon. Paul T. Arcangel, Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 12, Davao City, as Assisting
Judge of RTC, Br. 14, Davao City, to hear and decide the cases thereat at least
twice a week until Judge Layague has fully complied with the directive to him
in connection with the aforestated recent judicial audit conducted in his sala or until further orders from the
Court;
xxx xxx xxx
(e) DIRECT Judge Arcangel to take
appropriate action on the cases mentioned in par. (A), subpar. 1 (c) as well as
the following cases, to wit: Criminal Case No. 53,702 and Civil Case
No. 22,956, in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 dated 21
June 1993, within ninety (90) days from notice; as well as to INFORM the Court, through the Office of
DCA Christopher O. Lock, of the status of Civil Case No. 28,621.
(f)
DIRECT Judge
Layague and Judge Arcangel to SUBMIT their compliance hereof, as well
as the copies of the resolutions/orders, etc. in the aforecited cases to this
Court, through the Office of DCA Lock, Office of the Court Administrator, this
Court, on or before the lapse of the ninety-day period mentioned in par. (A),
subpar. 3 or par. (B), as the case may be.
On
In his Partial Compliance and Request for Extension[6] (with
attachments) dated August 25, 2005 addressed to Deputy Court Administrator Christopher
O. Lock, respondent stated that in compliance with our en banc Resolution of January 25, 2005, he rendered decisions in Criminal Cases Nos. 28,822 and 23,323-94[7]
and issued orders in the following cases:
Criminal Cases Nos. 5186; 24,854-92 and
24,855-92; 26,888-92; 27,011-92; 31,181-93; 35,917-95; 36,953-96; 37,089-96 and
37-090-96; 37,100-96; 37,347-96,
37,348-96 to 37,354-96; 38,542-97; 39,688-97 and 39,812-97; 39,986-97;
40,084-97; 41,619-98; 41,657-98 and 41,658-98; 42,197-98 and 42,198-98;
42,619-99; 42,705-99; 42,816-99; 44,139-99; 44,466-99; 44,749-2000; 44,807-00;
44,953-00 to 44,955-00; 44,956-00 to 44,962-00; 45,122-00; 46,034-00; 46,155-00;
47,362-01; 48,217-01; 48,608-01; 48,719-01; 49,079-01; 49,080-01 and 49,081-01;
49,082-01; 49,083-01 to 49,088-01; 49,089-01; 49,090-01 to 49,094-01; 49,095-01;
49,096-01 to 49,101-01; 49,102-01; 49,103-01; 49,104-01 to 49,105-01; 49,106-01
to 49,107-01; 50,143-02; 52,011-03; 52,779-03; 53,565-03; 53,713-04 to
53,715-04; 54,037-04 and 54,038-04.
Civil Cases Nos. 23,323-94; 23,675-95;
26,304-98; 26,356-98; 26,552-98; 28,822-01; 28,871-01; 29,253-02; 29,383-02 and
30,253-04.
Special Proceedings No. 4319-96 and 5640-2000.
Respondent attributes his failure to
fully comply with the Court’s en banc Resolution
of
To determine whether respondent judge
had complied with the Court’s directives, a follow-up judicial audit was
conducted in the same court from
Information gathered during the follow-up audit showed the following information, to wit:
A. DATA ON THE CASES WHICH JUDGE LAYAGUE WERE ABLE TO
DECIDE/RESOLVE, ETC.:
xxx xxx xxx
a. SFD
CASES:[10]
Judge Layague was able to decide only 12 cases
(10 criminal and 2 civil cases), representing only about 11% of
the 102 cases (84 cases [41] criminal cases and
43 civil cases) plus (14 cases [8 Criminal Cases and 6
Civil Cases]), which he was directed to decide in the Resolution, dated 25
January 2005 of the Supreme Court (En
Banc). His average output, thus, from the time he received the
subject Resolution on
Regarding the others, there are 18 cases (3 criminal
cases and 15 civil cases), which although still undecided are with draft
decisions already. The remainder, about 42 (23 criminal cases and
19 civil cases) are without even any drafts. Unaccounted are 16 cases (3 criminal
cases and 13 civil cases SFD).
b. SFR CASES:[11]
Of these 226 SFR Cases (156 criminal
cases and [69] civil
cases) which he (Judge Layague) was directed to resolve in the subject
Resolution of the Court, he was able to resolve only about 11 cases (4
criminal cases and 7 civil cases), representing only about 4%
of the total cases which he was directed to resolve. His average output
during the 4 month period (from the time he received the Resolution of the
Court until we audited him anew) is about 2 cases a month, which is very
disappointing. (Underscoring supplied) Considering that he (Judge Layague) has
a huge number of SFR cases to resolve; and considering, further, that he has
less than a year to go before he retire in August 2006, next year, he has to
resolve approximately at least 28 cases a month or more, if he wants to resolve
all the SFR cases before he retires, if he still have the will and
determination to finish it, which we can just hope he still has. The following are
the 4 of the 156 criminal cases SFR he was able to
resolve, to wit: Criminal Case Nos.
5,186, 48,217, 53,565 and 52,011. On the
other hand, these are the 7 of the [69] civil cases SFR he
was able to resolve, to wit: Civil Case Nos. 28,335; 29,253 (
Regarding the others, there is a lone unresolved
criminal case with a final draft ready for signing. Likewise, the other lone
unresolved criminal case is with an unfinal draft decision already. The
rest of the unresolved criminal cases, about 131 criminal cases, are
still without even any drafts. Relative
to the civil cases, there are 4 civil cases, which although still
unresolved were with draft decisions already. The rest are unresolved civil
cases, about 51 civil cases, are still without even any drafts. Unaccounted
are 27 cases SFR (19 criminal cases and 8 civil
cases).
B.
UNACCOUNTED CASES:
The following are the cases,
subject of the Resolution, dated
1. SIXTEEN (16) SFD CASES: Criminal Case Nos. 42,164; 51,742;
51,750 and Civil Case Nos. 238; 268; 278; 23,323; 24,434; 24,480;
25,150, 25,542; 28,073; 28,549; 30,002; 54,140 and SP 7293.
C.
NO UPDATED MONTHLY REPORTS, DOCKET INVENTORY AND
DOCKET BOOKS:
The Docket Inventory of RTC, Br 14,
On the other hand, with respect to the Monthly
Reports, based on records provided by the court, its last Monthly Report was
for ‘December 2004.’ NOTE: When the court was audited in 2004, its last Monthly
Report was for July 2004.
During the October 2004 Audit of the court, the
above problem has already been duly noted and relayed to Judge Layague and
concerned employees who were admonished to do something about it. After almost
a year, it seemed that nothing happened, as there are still no updated Monthly
Report/Semestral Docket Inventory in the court and the Docket Books are still
not yet updated.
D.
INVENTORY CONDUCTED BY JUDGE DARAY UNCOVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
(1) UNAUDITED CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION/RESOLUTION:
Judge Marivic T. Daray, Assisting Judge,
RTC, Br. 14, Davao City informed the Judicial Audit team that when she
conducted an inventory of her own of the cases in the court assigned to her,
she found out that there were cases submitted for decision (SFD), which upon
verification of the records by the Audit
Team were not shown during the 2004 audit of the court, the reason why these
cases were not audited, hence, not included in the Resolution, dated 25 January
2005 in A.M. No. 05-1-37-RTC. These cases are as follows: Criminal Case No.
55,263; Civil Case Nos. 21,701 [decided already]; 35,995; 27,733; 30,523, 30,633, SCA 21,274.
xxx xxx xxx
These cases were not included in the Report of the
Team which last conducted an audit of the court, hence, not included in the
subject Resolution, dated
(2)
CASES
AUDITED DURING THE LAST AUDIT WHICH WERE NOT SFD/SFR DURING THAT TIME, BUT HAVE
MOVED, AND AFTER THE AUDIT ALREADY SFD/SFR:
These cases are the following: Criminal
Case Nos. 53,476, 53,477, 53,478,
53,479, 53,480, 53,481,
53, 482, 53,483, 53,484,
53,485, 53,486, 53,487 and 54,397; and Civil
Case Nos. 22,405; 27,385.
xxx xxx xxx
(3)
CASES
INADVERENTLY OMITTED IN THE REPORT:
These cases are as follows: to wit:
Civil Case No. 26,480; 29,610; 30,230 and 29,330.
xxx xxx xxx
(4)
CASES NOT ACCURATELY RECORDED DURING THE LAST
AUDIT:
These cases are the following, to wit: Civil
Case Nos. 29,499, 30,118; and 30,094.
xxx xxx xxx
(5)
MISMANAGEMENT OF THE COURT:
In 2004, the Audit Team has no
knowledge, nor were they forewarned of how disorganized the court (RTC, Br. 14,
Davao City) was, such that the same needs
more time and attention than the other courts (with retiring judges)
which was first audited that time. The
Team, has to maximize the use of the short time left for them to audit the
court. One of the many measures adopted was to concentrate more on the
‘movement of cases,’ especially those with 2003 settings and below, not so much
those cases with 2004 settings, except SFD/SFR Cases, inasmuch as the audit was
conducted in 2004, and cases with 2004 settings were to be considered still to
have moved on time.
When the court was audited,
tell-tale signs or indicia that the same has been mismanaged were already
evident. (1) There was no proper safekeeping of expedientes of court
cases, especially the active ones. They were found anywhere, i.e. on desk tops
or on the floor, etc. (2) The Audit Team which audited the court in 2004 were
not shown all the records of active cases. That is why there were still
unaudited cases not included in the Report of the Team; (3) The pleadings, etc.
inside the expedientes were not hand-stitched but were just kept
together by fasteners with some loose pleadings, orders, etc. not yet held by
fasteners; (4) The arrangements of the pleadings, orders, etc. in some, if not
most of the expedientes, are not in chronological order, the reason why
the team, who were troubled with time, failed to record accurately the correct ‘last
action taken;’ In some, the latest
orders were not yet attached to the expedientes, not even paper-clipped
on front of the folder of the same (expedientes), the reason why the
‘last action taken’ were not up to date;
(5) The Audit Team cannot reconcile the cases they audited vis-à-vis
the records of the court because the court’s last Semestral Docket Inventory
was a year behind and neither were the Docket Books of help inasmuch as the
entries were not updated; (6) Unaccounted Cases: There were cases, subject of
the Resolution, dated 25 January 2005 of the Court in A.M. No. 05-1-37, which
were not shown to the Audit Team, to wit: sixteen (16) SFD cases; and
twenty-seven (27) SFR cases. (7) No
updated Monthly Reports, Docket Inventory and Docket Books. The Docket
Inventory of RTC, Br 14,
On
the basis of the foregoing findings of the OCA, and acting on the latter’s
recommendation, the Court issued an en
banc Resolution[12]
dated
(a) DIRECT Judge William M.
Layague and Branch Clerk of Court Ray Uson Velasco, both of RTC, Branch
14,
(i) EXPLAIN,
within thirty (30) days from notice hereof, why (1) the following cases, which
were audited in 2004 and subject of the Resolution dated 25 January 2005 and
which apparently were not among the cases decided/resolved by Judge Layague,
were not shown to the Audit Team so that the same may be checked for compliance
with the Resolution of 25 January 2005, to wit: sixteen (16) SFD (submitted for decision) cases: Criminal
Case Nos. 42,164; 51,742; 51,750 and Civil Case Nos. 238; 268; 278; 23,323;
24,434; 24,480; 25,150, 25,542; 28,073; 28,549; 30,002; 54,140 and SP 7293; and twenty-seven
(27) SFR (submitted for resolution)
cases: Criminal Case Nos.
26,888; 31,181; 34,403; 34,534; 37,348; 37,349; 37,350; 37,351; 37,352; 37,353;
41,658; 42,197; 43,756; 44,955; 45,973, 45,974, 48,608; 53,657; 54,054; and Civil Case Nos. 26,873, 26,899; 27,526; 27,652;
27,838; 28,822; 29,302; and 30,028; (2) the court’s Monthly Report, the last one accomplished
being for December 2004, and Semestral Docket Inventory, the last one accomplished being a year ago, i.e. July to
December 2003, were not updated; and (3) there is no proper and orderly
safekeeping and upkeeping of expedientes of court cases, in that, expedientes
were found anywhere in the court, i.e. from desk tops to the floor, etc.;
almost all were not properly hand-stitched; a number thereof have pleadings
improperly and not chronologically arranged, etc.;
(ii) TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION, within thirty (30) days from notice hereof, to update the court’s Monthly Reports and Semestral Docket Inventory Reports; otherwise, the following provisions of Rule 1, par. 8 of Administrative Circular No. 4-2004 dated 4 February 2004 and Part C of Administrative Circular No. 10-94 dated 29 June 1994 shall be applied to them:
8. Failure to submit the Form, as
well as the documents required in the preceding paragraph, shall warrant
the withholding of the salaries of the judge/s and clerks of court xxx,
without prejudice to whatever administrative sanction the Supreme Court may
impose on them or criminal action which may be filed against them. The same
sanction shall apply to those submitting reports with incomplete or inaccurate
entries or attachments. (Emphasis
supplied)
. . .
C. Penalties
Willful non-compliance with the circular shall constitute serious misconduct and shall warrant imposition of the appropriate penalties. The Office of the Court Administrator shall report to the Court non-compliance with the circular within thirty (30) days from the expiration of the period for compliance.
(iii) SUBMIT
all pending monthly reports of cases and semestral docket inventory of cases to
the Court Management Office, thru the Office of DCA Christopher O. Lock, within
the same period of thirty (30) days from notice hereof; and
(iv)
DEVISE immediately a more effective and efficient system not only in the
accomplishment of the Monthly Report and Semestral Docket Inventory but also in
the proper filing, updating, up keeping
and safekeeping of expedientes of court cases with a STERN
WARNING that their failure to comply with the foregoing directives shall
be dealt with more severely in the future;
(b) REMIND Branch Clerk of Court Velasco of the provisions
of Circular No. 11 dated
Quoted hereunder, for your information and guidance, is the pertinent
portion of the resolution of this Court (First Division) in Administrative
Matter No. R-459-P, entitled The Court
Administrator, etc. vs. Numeriano Galang, etc., et al., promulgated on
The Court takes this opportunity to remind all Clerks of Court and
personnel concerned in lower courts to make the proper entries, without
skipping any page, in the general docket book, docket books for civil and
criminal cases, judgment and entries book, and execution books as contemplated
in Sections 8, 9 and 10, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, to the end that ‘by
reference to a single page the history of the case may be seen’ and so that the
actual number of pending cases reflected in the monthly reports as submitted to
this Court tally with the actual physical count of cases in their respective
Salas.
The Office of the Court Administrator shall see to it that all Salas of
lower courts, upon proper requests and requisition, are regularly furnished
with the necessary docket books so that the respective personnel thereof may be
in a position to effectively comply with Rule 136 of the Rules of Court.
Strict
Compliance is hereby enjoined.
(c) REQUIRE Branch Clerk of Court
Velasco to EXPLAIN, within thirty (30) days from notice hereof, his
failure to maintain and update the court’s Docket Books for criminal and civil
cases;
(d) ADVISE Branch Clerk of Court
Velasco to devise a systematic and orderly method of updating the entries in
the Docket Books, with a STERN WARNING that a same or similar
infraction in the future will be dealt with more severely;
(e) REQUIRE Branch Clerk of Court
Velasco to SUBMIT to the Court, thru the Office of DCA Christopher O.
Lock, a report of compliance with the foregoing directives within thirty (30)
days from notice hereof;
(f) DIRECT Judge Layague to
(i) DECIDE the following unaudited SFD cases, to wit: Criminal Case No.
55,263 and Civil Case Nos. 35,995; 27,733;
30,523; 30,633 and SCA
21,274; (ii) DECIDE the following cases audited in October 2004 which were not yet submitted for
decision at that time but had moved and now submitted for decision, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 53,476; 53,477; 53,478;
53,479; 53,480; 53,481; 53,482; 53,483; 53,484; 53,485; 53,486; 53,487 and Civil Case No.
22,405; (iii) RESOLVE the following SFR cases, to wit: Criminal Case No. 54,397 and Civil Case
No. 27,385; (iv) DECIDE the following SFD cases inadvertently omitted in the Report of the Team which
conducted the 2004 audit of the court, hence, not included in the 25 January
2005 Resolution, to wit: Civil
Case Nos. 29,330 and 30,230; (v) RESOLVE the following SFR
cases inadvertently omitted in the Report of the Team which conducted the 2004
audit, hence, not included in the 25 January 2005, to wit: Civil Case Nos.
26,480 and 29,610; (vi) DECIDE the following SFD cases inaccurately
recorded during the October 2004 audit, to wit: Civil Case Nos. 30,094 and
30,118; and (vii) RESOLVE the
incident in the following SFR case inaccurately recorded during the October
2004 audit, to wit: Civil Case
No. 29,499, all within ninety (90) days from
notice hereof; and
(g) GRANT
the request of Judge Layague for an extension of three (3) months from
In compliance with the above directive, Atty. Ray Uson
Velasco, Clerk of Court, Branch 14, Davao City, filed his explanation by letter[13]
dated October 12, 2005, and stated that about seven (7) cases[14] mentioned
in the said Resolution do not belong to the docket of RTC, Br. 14, Davao City
but to other branches of the court as per certification[15] of the Office of the Clerk of Court. These
are: Civil Cases Nos. 24,480; 25,150;
25,542; 26,899; 28,549;[16]
30,028; and 54,140. Atty. Velasco
also apologized for his administrative lapses and human frailties and asked that
he be given more time to comply with the inventory and monthly reports.
Respondent Judge Layague, in his
Consolidated Compliance[17]
dated October 6, 2005, clarified that, regarding the complaint of Paul L.
Cansino in A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2055-RTJ
respecting Criminal Case No. 45,973-2000 and Criminal Case No. 45,974-2000, the
motion to quash the information and/or to dismiss filed in those cases were
jointly resolved in a resolution dated February 24, 2005. Respondent judge explained that the delay in
the resolution of said motion was attributable to the fact that the prosecution
moved to hold in abeyance the resolution of the same on account of the motion
for further certification filed by Ombudsman Desierto in G.R. No. 105965-70
(George Uy v. Sandiganbayan, Ombudsman and Roger C. Berbano, Sr., Special
Prosecutor), which fact has been explained in the resolution thereof.
In A.M. No. 05-2177-RTJ, entitled Development
Bank of the Philippines v. Judge William M. Layague, respondent Judge
Layague, in his letter[18]
dated
In our
Resolutions dated
On
Criminal Cases Nos. 31,436-93 and
31,437-93; 34,403-94; 36,954-96; 37,841-96; 38,875-97; 38,876-97; 38,877-97;
38,878-97; 42,138-98, 42,139-98 & 42,140-98; 42,336-99 to 42,341-99; 42,665-99; 43,003-99; 43,756-99; 43,822-99;
44,952-2000; 46,192-2000 to 46,202-2000;
46,361-2000 to 46,381-2000; 47,028-2001; 47,661-2001; 48,627-2001;
50,261-2002; 51,165-2002; 52,369-2003 and 53,657-2004.
Civil Cases Nos. 024-99; 044-2000;
238-2004; 268-2004; 278-2004; 7293-2003; 12,271; 17,670-85; 22,052-93;
22,603-94; 22,687-94; 22,993-94; 23,471-95; 24,529-96; 24,969-97; 25,104-97;
25,513-97; 26,254-98; 26,322-98; 26,635-98; 26,694-98; 26,729-98; 26,775-98;
27,304-99; 27,309-99; 27,526-99; 27,820-00; 27,845-00; 28,003-2000;
28,060-2000; 28,127-2000; 28,172-2000; 28,549-2001; 28,572-2002; 28,577-2001;
28,842-2001; 28,958-2002; 29,033-2002; 29,162-2000; 29,224-2002; 29,353-2002;
29,552-2003; 30,002-2003 and 30,340-2004.
Of the cases left for appropriate
action by the respondent judge, he was able to act on the following cases as
per report[22] by the
follow-up judicial audit team:
(a) DECIDED CASES: Criminal Case Nos.
34,403; 36,954; 37,841; 42,138, 42,139 and 42,140; 43,003;
52,369; 31,436 and 31,437;
43,756; 43,822; 44,952; and 47,028; including
Civil Case Nos. 12,271; 22,687; 25,104;
28,172; 28,549; 28,577; Civil Case No. 28,842; 28,958; 29,033;
29,224; 30,340; 26,322; 26,694;
27,304; 27,845; 28,003; 28,572; 29,162; 26,635; 28,060; 238; 268; 278;
30,002; SP 7293; 22,603; 25,513; and
(b) CASES
WHERE UNRESOLVED INCIDENTS RESOLVED BUT CASE STILL ACTIVE: Criminal Case Nos. 38,875; 38,876; 38,877; 38,878;
42,336; 42,337; 42,338; 42,339;
42,340; 42,341; 45,973; Criminal Case No. 45,973, together with another
case, to wit: Criminal Case No. 45,974 have
already been resolved in the negative by Judge Layague in an Order, dated 24
February 2005); Criminal Case No. 45,974 (It
appears that the unresolved incident(s) in this case, i.e. a motion to quash and/or
to dismiss this case (Criminal Case No. 45,974), together with another
case, to wit: Criminal Case No. 45,973, have
already been resolved in the negative by Judge Layague in an Order, dated 24
February 2005.); Criminal Case Nos. 46,192; 46,193; 46,194; 46,195; 46,196;
46,197; 46,198; 46,199; 46,200; 46,201; 46,202; 46,361; 46,362; 46,363; 46,364;
46,365; 46,366; 46,367; 46,368; 46,369; 46,370; 46,371; 46,372; 46,373; 46,374;
46,375; 46,376; 46,377; 46,378; 46,379; 46,380; 46,381; 47,362; and 47,661;
51,165; 52,011; 52,779;
53,565; and 53,657; 50,261; 42,665; 48,627; including Civil Case Nos. 024; 17,670; 22,603; 22,993; Civil Case No. 23,471; 24,969;
26,254; 26,775; 27,309; 27,526; 27,820; 28,127;
29,353; 29,552; LRC 044; 24,529; 26,729; SP
22,052; 17,670; 22,993; 23,471; and 24,969.
On
Criminal Cases Nos. 38,789-97 and 38,790-97; 39,088-97; 39,337-97 to 39,341-97;
40,094-97; 40,391-98; 41,092-98; 41,460-98; 41,538-98 and 41,539-98; 41,643-98; 42-164-98;
42,695-99; 43,689-99; 44,929-2000; 44,930-2000; 44,931-2000; 44,932-2000; 45,238-2000
to 45,240-2000; 45,973-2000 and
45,974-2000; 47,600-2001; 47,601-2001; 47,828-2001; 48,771-2001 and 48,772-2001; 48,976-2001; 50,739-2002;
51,742-2003; 51,747-2003 to 51,750-2003.
Civil Cases Nos. 049-2000; 2933; 20,097-90;
21,329-92; 24,342-96; 24,343-96; 24,344-96; 24,541-96; 24,610-96; 24,875-96;
25,165-97; 25,206-97; 25,232-97; 25,589-97; 25,663-97; 25,694-97; 25,732-97;
26,806-98; 26,873-98; 27,335-99; 27,355-99; 27,408-99; 27,424-99; 27,511-99;
27,652-99; 28,037-2000; 28,073-2000; 28,401-2001; 28,481-2001; 28,501-2001;
28,892-2001; 29,093-2002; 29,240-2002; 29,386-2002; 29,551-2003; 29,732-2003; 29,801-2003;
30,087-2003.
Upon
recommendation of the OCA, the Court issued Resolution[24]
dated
(a) NOTE the Third Partial Compliance
dated
(b) GRANT the request of Judge
Layague for an extension until
(c) DENY the request of Judge Layague
for an audit of his cases after May 29, 2006, as this administrative matter is
the result of the judicial audit conducted sometime in 2004 in view of his
forthcoming retirement;
(d) DIRECT Judge Layague to
(i) DECIDE the following remaining undecided cases as
required in the resolution of January 25, 2005 in A.M. No. 05-1-37-RTC, to wit:
Criminal Cases Nos. 30,811; 34,403,
38,573; 42,651; 43,858; 43,859; 46,750; and Civil Cases
Nos. 19,835; 23,263; 24,434; 24,502; 24,930; 25,110; 25,411; 25,912; 26,457;
27,050; 27,097; 27,112; 28,695; 29,512 and 29,648.
(ii) RESOLVE
the unresolved incidents in the following cases as required in the resolution
of January 25, 2005 in A.M. No. 05-1-37-RTC, to wit: Criminal Cases Nos. 34,534; 40,953; 54,054;
and Civil Cases Nos. 23,224;
24,328; 24,714; 25,165; 27,298; 27,271; 27,340; 27,670; 27,838; 28,192; 28,501;
28,085; 29,302; 29,732 and SP
28,099; and
(iii) FULLY AND FAITHFULLY COMPLY with the resolution of
(f)
DIRECT Judge Layague to (i) DECIDE the following unaudited SFD cases, to wit: Criminal Case No. 55,263 and
Civil Case Nos. 35,995; 27,733; 30,523, 30,633 and SCA 21,274; (ii) DECIDE the following cases audited in October 2004 which were not yet
submitted for decision at that time but
had moved and now submitted for decision, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 53,476,
53,477, 53,478, 53,479,
53,480, 53,481, 53,482,
53,483, 53,484, 53,485,
53,486, 53,487 and Civil Case Nos. 22,405;
(iii) RESOLVE the following SFR cases, to wit: Criminal
Case Nos. 54,397 and Civil Case Nos. 27,385; (iv) DECIDE the following SFD cases inadvertently omitted in the Report of the Team which conducted the
2004 audit of the court, hence, not included in the January 25, 2005
Resolution, to wit: Civil Case No.
29,330 and 30,230; (v) RESOLVE the
following SFR cases inadvertently omitted in the Report of the Team which
conducted the 2004 audit, hence, not included in the January 25, 2005, to wit: Civil Case Nos. 26,480 and 29,610; (vi) DECIDE the
following SFD cases inaccurately recorded during
the October 2004 audit, to wit: Civil
Case Nos. 30,094 and 30,118; and
(vii) RESOLVE the incident in the
following SFR case inaccurately recorded during the October 2004 audit, to wit:
Civil Case No. 29,499, all within ninety (90) days from notice hereof; and xxx’
(e) CONSIDER A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-2055-RTJ
(Paul L. Cansino vs. Judge William M. Layague, RTC, Branch 14,
Based on respondent judge’s Third
Partial Compliance and Last Request for Extension, the OCA made the following findings:[25]
2. A
reading of his other compliance, i.e. ‘THIRD
PARTIAL COMPLIANCE AND LAST REQUEST FOR EXTENSION(,)’dated
B. CASES
STILL UNDECIDED AND UNRESOLVED AFTER THE THIRD PARTIAL COMPLIANCE AND LAST
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION(,) DATED 3 APRIL 2006 FILED BY JUDGE LAYAGUE:
(i) Regarding
the
Considering the ‘LATEST
COMPLIANCE FILED BY JUDGE LAYAGUE, I.E. ‘THIRD PARTIAL COMPLIANCE AND LAST
REQUEST FOR EXTENSION(,) dated 3 April 2006, only the following cases, as
stated in pars. 1 (a) and 2 of the 25 January 200(5) En Banc Resolution of the Court in A.M. No. 05-1-37-RTC, remained
undecided, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 30,811; 34,403; 38,573; 42,651;
43,858; 43,859; 46,750; and Civil Case Nos. 19,835; 23,263; 24,434; 24,502;
24,930; 25,110; 25,411; 25,912; 26,457; 27,050; 27,097; 27,112; 28,695; 29,512;
29,648; and 54,140. Regarding the
unresolved cases, as stated in par. 1 (b) of the 25 January 2005 En Banc Resolution of the Court in A.M.
No. 05-1-37-RTC, remained unresolved, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 34,534;
40,953; 54,054; and Civil Case Nos.
23,224; 24,328; 24,714; 25,165; 27,298; 27,271; 27,340; 27,670; 27,838; 28,192;
28,501; 29,085; 29,302; 29,732; and SP 28,099.
(ii) Regarding the
Before Judge Layague’s recent
Compliances has yet to fully comply with the above resolution of the Court. The
following cases remained still undecided/unresolved, to wit: (1) Cases
submitted for decision (SFD Cases): (a) Unaudited Cases: Criminal
Case No. 55,263 and Civil Case Nos. 27,733; 30,523, 30,633 and SCA 21,274; (b) Audited Cases: Criminal
Case Nos. 53, 476; 53,477; 53,478;
53,479; 53,480; 53,481;
53,482; 53,483; 53,484;
53,485; 53,486; 53,487; and Civil Case Nos. 22,405; (c)
Cases inadvertently omitted in the 25 January 2005 Resolution, to wit: Civil
Case No. 29,330; 30,230; (d) Inaccurately recorded cases, to wit:: Civil
Case No. 30,094; and 30,118. (2) Cases
submitted for resolution (SFR Cases): (a) Criminal Case Nos. 54,397; and Civil Case Nos. 27,385; (b) SFR Cases inadvertently omitted in the Report of the Team which conducted the 2004
audit, hence, not included in the 25 January 2005, to wit: Civil Case Nos.
26,480; 29,610; and (vii) SFR Cases
inaccurately recorded during the October 2004 audit, to wit:: Civil
Case Nos. 29,499. (Emphasis
supplied)
On
FULL AND FINAL COMPLIANCE:
Criminal Case Nos. 30,811-93; 36,047-95; 38,573-97;
40,953-98; 42,651-99; 43,858-99 and 43,859-99; 46,750-01; 52,630-03.
Civil Case Nos. 19,835-89; 22,956-94; 23,224-94; 23,263-94;
24,328-96; 24,434-96; 24,502-96; 24,714-96; 24,930-97; 25,110-95; 25,411-97;
25,912-97; 26,457-98; 26,890; 27,050-99; 27,097-99; 27,112-99; 27,271-99;
27,298-99; 27,340-99; 27,375-99; 27,670-99; 27,838-2000; 27,981-2000; 28,089-2001;
28,099-2000; 28,192-2000; 28,335-2000; 28,463-2001; 28,621-2001; 28,695-2001;
29,085-2002; 29,302-2002; 29,512-2003; 29,926-2003; 29,648-2003;
Crim. Case Nos. 34,534-1994; 53,702-2004; 54,054-2004;
54,140-2004 and Civil Cases Nos. 24,480-96; 25,542-97; 26,899-96; 30,028-03 and
25,150-97.[27]
FULL COMPLIANCE:
Criminal
Case Nos. 26,888-92; 31,181-93; 34,403-94; 37,347-96, 37,348-96, 37,349-96,
37,350-96, 37,351-96, 37,352-96, 37,353-96 and 37,354-96;
41,657-98 and 41,658-98; 42,164-98;
42,197-98 and 42,198-98; 43,756-99;
44,953-00 to 44,955-00; 45,973-2000 and
45,974-2000; 48,608-01; 51,742-03; 51,747-03 to 51,750-03; 53,476-03 to 53,487-03;
53,657-04; 54,397-04; 55,263-04;
Other cases
– 230-2004; 268-2004, 278-2004;
Special
Proceedings – 7293-03;
Civil Case
No. SCA-21,274-92; 22,405-92; 23,323-94;
24,434-96; 26,480-98; 26,873-98; 27,385-99; 27,526-99; 27,652-99; 27,733-99;
27,838-2000; 28,073-2000; 28,549-2001; 28,822-2001; 29,302-2002; 29,330-2002;
29,499-2003; 29,610-2003; 30,002-2003; 30,094-2003; 30,118-2003, 30,230-2004;
30,523-2004; 30,633-2004;
Crim Case
Nos. 54,140-04; 35,995-1995; 54,054-2004; 34,534-1994 and Civil Case Nos. 24,480-96;
25,542-97; 30,028-03; 26,899-98; 25,150-97.[28]
With
the submission of respondent judge’s Full
and Final Compliance, the OCA made the following evaluations/findings as
per Memorandum Report:[29]
A consideration of the
captioned ‘FULL AND FINAL COMPLIANCE,’ and the ‘FULL COMPLIANCE,’
both dated 26 July 2006, show that Judge Layague, has FULLY
acted upon on all the remaining cases still undecided, unresolved and
unacted upon, as directed by the Supreme
Court in its above Resolution. The others, as will be shown below, were already
acted upon by Judge Layague in his previous Compliances, to wit:
Re: par. (a), subpar. 1
(a) of the Resolution, dated 25 January 2005, these cases were already acted
upon, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 30,811; 34,403; 36,954; 37,841;
38,573; 38,790; 39,088; 39,337; 39,338; 39,339; 39,340; 39,341; 40,094;
41,092; 41,643; 42,138; 42,139; 42,140; 42,651; 42,695; 43,003; 44,929;
44,930; 44,931; 44,932; 45,238; 45,239; 45,240; 46,750; 47,828;
48,976; 50,739; 51,747; 51,748; 51,749; 51,750; 97,370;
97,371; 97,372; 97,373; 52,369; and Civil Case Nos. 049; 12,271;
19,835; 20,097; 21,329; 22,687; 23,263; 23,323; 24,480; 24,502;
24,610; 24,930; 25,104; 25,110; 25,206; 25,232; 25,411; 25,542; 25,663;
25,912; 26,457; 27,050; 27,097; 27,112; 27,511; 28,073; 28,172; 28,481; 28,549;
28,577; 28,695; 28,842; 28,958; 29,033; 29,093; 29,224; 29,240; 29,512; 29,551;
29,648; 30,087; 30,340; and 54,140.
Regarding par. (a),
subpar. 1 (b) of the Resolution, dated 25 January 2005, the following cases
were already acted upon, to wit: Criminal
Case Nos. 5186; 24,854; 24,855; 26,888; 27,011; 31,181; 31,436;
31,437; 34,403; 34,534; 35,917; 36,953; 37,089; 37,090; 37,100; 37,347;
37,348; 37,349; 37,350; 37,351; 37,352; 37,353; 37,354; 38,542; 38,875;
38,876; 38,877; 38,878; 39,688; 39,812; 39,986; 40,084; 40,391;
40,953; 41,460; 41,538; 41,539; 41,619; 41,657; 41,658; 42,197;
42,198; 42,336; 42,337; 42,338; 42,339; 42,340; 42,341;
42,619; 42,705; 42,816; 42,817; 42,818; 43,756; 43,822; 44,139;
44,466; 44,749; 44,807; 44,952; 44,953; 44,954; 44,955; 44,956;
44,957; 44,958; 44,959; 44,960; 44,961; 44,962; 45,122; 45,973; 45,974;
46,034; 46,155; 46,192; 46,193; 46,194; 46,195; 46,196; 46,197; 46,198;
46,199; 46,200; 46,201; 46,202; 46,361; 46,362; 46,363; 46,364; 46,365; 46,366;
46,367; 46,368; 46,369; 46,370; 46,371; 46,372; 46,373; 46,374; 46,375; 46,376;
46,377; 46,378; 46,379; 46,380; 46,381; 47,028; 47,362; 47,661; 48,217;
48,608; 48,627; 48,719; 48,771; 48,772; 49,079; 49,080;
49,081; 49,082; 49,083; 49,084; 49,085; 49,086; 49,087; 49,088; 49,089; 49,090;
49,091; 49,092; 49,093; 49,094; 49,095; 49,096; 49,097; 49,098; 49,099; 49,100;
49,101; 49,102; 49,103; 49,104; 49,105; 49,106; 49,107; 50,143; 51,165;
52,011; 52,779; 53,565; 53,657; 53,713; 53,714; 53,715; 54,037;
54.038; 54,054; and Civil Case Nos. 024; (SP) 2933; 17,670; 22,603;
22,993; 23,224; 23,471; 23,675; 24,328; 24,541; 24,714; 24,875; 24,969; 25,165;
25,513; 25,589; 25,694; 25,732; 26,254; 26,304; 26,322; 26,356; 26,552; 26,694;
26,775; 26,873; 26,899; 27,298; 27,271; 27,304; 27,309; 27,335;
27,340; 27,355; 27,408; 27,424; 27,526; 27,652; 27,670; 27,820;
27,838; 27,845; 27,981; 28,003; 28,037; 28,127; 28,192; 28,335;
28,401; 28,501; 28,572; 28,822; 28,871; 29,085; 29,162; 29,253; 29,302;
29,353; 29,383; 29,386; 29,552; 29,732; 29,801; 30,028; 30,253; SP 4319;
SP 5640; SP 28,099; and LRC 044.
Going back to the latest
Compliances submitted by Judge Layague, a reading of the ‘FULL AND FINAL
COMPLIANCE,’ dated
Next, a consideration of
the captioned ‘FULL COMPLIANCE,’ also dated
Regarding Par
(f) thereof, the following
cases were acted upon as follows, to wit: (a) Decided/dismissed: Criminal
Case No. 54,397; 55,263; Civil Case Nos. 22,405; 26,480; 27,385; 27,733;
30,118; 30,230; 29,330; 29,610; 30,094; 30,523; 30,633; SCA 21,274; and
(b) As indicated in the footnotes, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 53,476, 53,477,
53,478, 53,479, 53,480,
53,481, 53,482, 53,483,
53,484, 53,485, 53,486,
53,487) Civil Case Nos. 29,499and 35,995.
Judge Layague has
already retired last
As to Judge
Marivic T. Daray and Atty. Ray Uson Velasco’s compliance with the directives of
this Court, here is the report and recommendation of the OCA:[30]
II. RE: HON. MARIVIC T. DARAY, Assisting RTC,
xxx xxx xxx
It
would seem that Judge Daray’s tenure as Assisting Judge in RTC, Br. 14, was
automatically terminated by reason of the above resolution of the Court, i.e.
in view of the full compliance by Judge
Layague with the directive of the Court in its Resolution, dated
Recently, however, she was
designated as Acting Presiding Judge of the court.
The following cases mentioned in par. (a), subpar.
1 (c) of the
The following twenty-eight (28) Civil Cases,
included in the
The following cases mentioned in the same par. (a),
subpar. 1 (c) of the
II.
RE: (JUDGE LAYAGUE) AND ATTY. RAY USON VELASCO,
BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, RTC, BR. 14, DAVAO CITY:
In
his ‘COMPLIANCE AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION(,)’ dated 10 November 2005, which Judge Layague submitted in connection with the
abovementioned Supreme Court En Banc
Resolution, dated 20 September 2005 Judge Layague alleges that: (1) He
specifically instructed Atty. Velasco to coordinate with the Audit Team and to
furnish them all the court records that they wish to examine; (2) It
took the Audit Team 2 days to conduct the audit for they proceeded to Tagum
City to conduct the audit of another court, leaving with Atty. Velasco a list
of cases the records of which they failed to find with instruction that they
will come back to finish the audit as soon as the records will be made
available. (3) That when the audit team returned from Tagum City,
however, only Atty. Runez appeared to inform that they were leaving for Manila;
(4) Regarding the failure to submit monthly reports and semestral
docket inventory, in December 2004, he ordered his staff to conduct an
inventory but what was completed was for year 2003, and as there appears a
discrepancy in the number of cases
raffled to Branch 14 and number of active cases he ordered another inventory in
January 2004 to reconcile the discrepancy when the Audit Team arrived which
explains why they observed that records were on table tops and some were on the
floor; (5) In view of the discrepancy, no monthly reports could be
prepared, and with the assumption of a new Assisting Judge (Judge Daray) she
suggested that before the submission of Monthly Reports for the period from
January up to her assumption in 1 June 2005, an actual inventory be conducted
to find out the actual number of active cases of Branch 14 vis-à-vis the
total number of cases assigned and raffled to Branch 14.
In his Letter, dated 12
October 2005, which Atty. Velasco submitted, in compliance with the (En Banc) Resolution, dated 20 September
2005 issued in A.M. No. No. 05-1-3-RTC, he states that: (1) 7 of the 21
civil cases mentioned therein are not found in the court’s docket and upon
verification by the ‘Civil Case (I)n-Charge’
(clerk in charge with civil cases), they were raffled and belong to
either RTCs 8, 11 or 33. In a Certification, dated 12 October 2005 (Annex A of
Letter) issued by Atty. Edipolo P. Sarabia, Jr., OIC Clerk of Court V, these 7
(not 8) civil cases are Civil Case Nos. 24,480; 25,150; 25,542; 30,028;
28,549; 54,140; 26,899; (2) He, together with clerks in charge with criminal
and civil cases, will conduct a
re-inventory of the records from 17 to 28 October 2005 so that the court will be
able to submit an accurate monthly reports; (3) There was delay in the
entries in the criminal docket because the position of criminal cases clerk had
been vacant for a long period of time and there was difficulty in coping up
with the entries; (4) As to the records placed in the staff room floor,
they were filed neatly near the tables of the Supreme Court team for them to go
over. All records were shown to them but I had no control over what records
they chose to inventory. After the Supreme Court team returned from
In compliance, dated 12
October 2005 (to the Supreme Court En
Banc Resolution, dated 20 September 2005 issued in A.M. No. 05-1-37-RTC)
addressed to the Court Administrator (Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.) and
Atty. Ma. Luisa D. Villarama, Clerk of Court, En Banc, Supreme Court, he (Atty. Velasco) states the following, to
wit: (i) About seven (7) cases
mentioned in the said Resolution do not belong to the docket of RTC, Br. 14,
Davao City but to other branches of the court. xxx
Re: inventory and
monthly reports, a re-inventory of the records will be done from 17 to 28
October 2005 so that accurate monthly reports may be submitted; (ii)
There was delay in the entries in the Criminal Docket Book because the item for
Criminal Cases Clerk was vacated a long time ago and there was difficulty in
coping up with the entries; (iii) As to the records placed in the staff
room floor, they were filed neatly near the tables of the Supreme Court Team
for them to go over. All records were shown to them but I have no control over
what records they chose to inventory. After the Supreme Court team returned
from Tagum, they informed me that the inventory was already finished. Nobody
complained to me or to the Executive Judge that the inventory was not yet
finished; (iv) It is true that there were records at the courtroom. We
already ran out of space for them that was why the records were filed orderly
and neatly on the side of the courtroom. The records found on my table were
those subject of my draft orders and draft decisions which had accumulated. I
was paralyzed on the right side of my body for more than a month. In fact, when
I met the Supreme Court team on their second day, I still could not hold a pen.
At present the records are now in their proper places; (v) He is very
sorry for the administrative lapses and human frailties. He begs that time be
given him to comply with the inventory and monthly reports.
In his ‘COMPLIANCE AND MOTION FOR EXTENSION(,)’ dated 11
November 2005, Atty. Velasco alleges that he
adopts the Compliance and Motion for Extension filed by Judge Layague,
Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 14, Davao City. Moreover, he states that he will be
applying for emergency leave for 2 weeks as there is a need for an immediate
operation of his kidney in
However, based on the
pleadings/communications previously filed, including the one recently made,
i.e. Letter, dated 9 January 2006, with appended lacking monthly reports and semestral docket
inventories, it appears that both Judge Layague and Atty. Velasco have complied
with the following portions of the Supreme Court En Banc Resolution, dated 20 September 2005 in A. M. NO.
05-1-37-RTC, to wit:
xxx xxx xxx
With respect,
in particular, to the portion thereof directing the submission of the lacking
monthly reports and semestral docket inventories, the same have been submitted,
as shown by original copies thereof attached to the Letter, dated 9 January
2006, which was filed ‘(i)n compliance
with Sub-par III, Par. (a) of the Resolution En Banc of the Supreme Court dated
Besides,
during the judicial audit recently conducted, from 16 to
While respondent judge’s
claims to have fully complied with the Court’s en banc Resolutions dated January 25, 2005 and September 20, 2005
in Administrative Order No. 05-1-37-RTC, the recent
judicial audit conducted in the RTC, Branch 14, Davao City on November 16 to
30, 2006, revealed that he had left
behind 41 cases (19 criminal cases and 22 civil cases), submitted for
decision; and 12 cases (3 criminal cases and 9 civil cases) with incidents submitted
for resolution, or a total of 53 cases,
all
of which were already beyond the reglementary period to
resolve. It was also observed that these
cases were not included in the said Resolutions.[32]
In view of the foregoing,
the OCA recommended that:[33]
(a)
Regarding the HON. WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE, formerly the Presiding Judge,
RTC, Br. 14, Davao City, the report of the judicial audit team be treated as an
administrative complaint and that the instant matter be re-docketed as a
regular administrative matter against respondent judge. He be adjudged liable for gross inefficiency
for undue delay in deciding and resolving an exceptionally huge number of
cases. There being full compliance by him of the Resolutions of
the Supreme Court En Banc, dated
(b) the HON. MARIVIC T. DARAY, Presiding Judge RTC, Br. 18,
(1) to TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION on the following remaining
unacted cases, mentioned in par. (a), subpar. 1 (c) of the En Banc Resolution of the Court, dated 25 January 2005 in A.M. No.
05-1-37-RTC, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 33,438; 33,439; 33,440; 33,441;
33,657; 33,658; 33,659; 45,179; 45,694; 46,489; 46,728; 48,892; 48,906; 49,165;
49,836; 52,996; and Civil Case Nos. 5926; 10,790; 16,269; 20,973;
22,397; 23,467; 25,159; 25,222; 25,274; 25,358, 25,698; 25,866; 26,704; 26,786;
26,920; 27,027; 27,449; 27,499; 27,534; 27,709; 27,715; 27,776; 27,982; 28,224;
28,343; 28,383; 28,674; 28,768; 28,773; 28,901; 28,660; 29,017; 29,076; 29,079;
29,111; 29,150; 29,250; 29,285; 29,392; 29,629; 29,746; 29,792; 29,812; 30,007;
SP 3451; SP 4284; SP 7159, 24,342; 24,343; 24,344; 24,529; 25,110; 26,635;
26,890; 27,375; 28,481;
(2) to
DECIDE the following cases, submitted for decision, which are already
beyond the reglementary period to decide left behind by Judge W. M. Layague,
former Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 14, Davao City, who already retired without
deciding them, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 35,995; 45,225; 47,069; 54,223;
54,224; 54,225; 54,226; 54,227; 54,228; 54,229; 54,230; 54,976; 54,977; 54,978; 54,979; 55,980;
55,981; 55,982; 55,983; Civil Case Nos. SP 3595; SP 7106; 15,852; 15,853;
15,854; 15,855; 15,856; 20,871; 22,075; 25,274; 27,628; 27,711; 27,819; 27,984;
28,762; 28,773; 29,006; 29,746; 29,912; 30,127; 30,302; 30,779; (3) to RESOLVE the incident(s) in the
following cases, which were already beyond the reglementary period to resolve,
also left behind by Judge Layague, who already retired without resolving them,
to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 34,537; 38,553; 38,554; and Civil Case
Nos. 250; 24,342; 24,343; 24,344; 27,982; 29,064; 29,324; 29,654; 29,738.
c) Regarding ATTY. RAY
USON VELASCO, Branch Clerk of Court, RTC, Br. 14, Davao City, in
connection with the matter under consideration, insofar as he is concerned, the
same be considered as CLOSED and TERMINATED, inasmuch as he has
already complied with what he was required to do under the Resolution,
dated 20 September 2005, in A. M. NO.
05-1-37-RTC.
Hence,
in our Resolution dated March 6, 2007, the Memorandum Report of the OCA was
re-docketed as a regular administrative matter against respondent judge for gross
inefficiency; that is, for undue delay in deciding and resolving an
exceptionally huge number of cases.
The Court shares the position taken
by the OCA.
The
Court has always impressed upon all members of the judiciary the need to decide
cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice
delayed is justice denied.[34] The Constitution itself, under Section 15,
Article VIII, mandates that lower courts have three (3) months from the date of
submission within which to decide the cases or matters pending before
them. 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."
Finally, Canons 6 and 7 of the Canons
of Judicial Ethics exhort judges to be prompt and punctual in the disposition
and resolution of cases and matters pending before their court, 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.
To
ensure that the mandates on the prompt disposition of judicial business are
complied with, this Court issued Administrative Circular No. 1 dated
However, these rules are not
rigid. An extension of the period may
be granted by this Court upon request by the judge concerned on account of
heavy case load, age, poor health or any other reasonable excuse.
Here, however, respondent judge
clearly transgressed the applicable rules relating to the proper and speedy
disposition and resolution of cases within the reglementary period provided by
law. The records show that as of audit
date (October 4 to 15, 2004), the following facts were established: (1) 83
cases were not decided within the reglementary period; (2) pending incidents in
230 other cases remained unresolved even beyond the prescribed period to
resolve; and (3) no appropriate action was made on 221 others (193 cases with
no further action, 19 cases with no further settings and 9 cases with no action
taken yet since the filing thereof), despite the lapse of considerable time. Worse, after his retirement, it was found
out that he had left behind 53 cases (not included in those cases stated in the
court’s resolution dated January 25, 2006 and September 20, 2006), all of which were beyond the reglementary
period to decide/resolve. We have
stated in Cadauan v. Judge Alivia:[35]
Decision-making,
among other duties, is the primordial 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 of providing all persons the right to a speedy, impartial and public
trial and to a speedy disposition of cases.
While it may be true that the delays
incurred by respondent judge can be attributed in part to his failing health, nonetheless,
his illness should not be an excuse for his failure to render the corresponding
decisions or resolutions within the prescribed period. It was incumbent upon him to inform this
Court of his inability to seasonably decide the cases and he could have sought
an extension of the reglementary period within which to decide his cases if he
thought that he could not comply with his judicial duty. Poor health may excuse a judge’s failure to
decide cases within the reglementary period but not his failure to request an
extension of time within which to decide cases on time. We note that respondent judge made no such
request long before an audit was conducted in his sala. The
fact that he was burdened with failing health, which adversely affected his
work efficiency, serves only to mitigate the penalty, not to exonerate him.
Under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the
Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision is classified as a
less serious charge. Under Section 11(B) of the same Rule, the penalty
for such 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
P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000. In Report
on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City,[36] the
Court observed the factors considered in the determination of the proper
penalty for failure to decide a case on time:
We
have always considered the failure of a judge to decide a case within ninety
(90) days as gross inefficiency and imposed either fine or suspension from
service without pay for such. The fines imposed vary in each case, depending
chiefly on the number of cases not decided within the reglementary period and
other factors, to wit: the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances-
the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age
of the judge, etc. The fines imposed vary in each case, depending chiefly on
the number of cases or matters undecided or unresolved, respectively, within
the reglementary period and other factors, to wit: the presence of aggravating
or mitigating circumstances — the damage suffered by the parties as a result of
the delay, the health and age of the judge, etc.
Thus, in
Office of the Court Administrator
v. Madronio, we held:
In a number of cases, the fines were set at ten thousand pesos (P10,000), for the judge failed to decide one (1) case within the reglementary period, without offering an explanation for such delay; for one (1) motion left unresolved within the prescriptive period; and for eight (8) cases left unresolved beyond the extended period of time granted to the judge, taking into consideration that the judge was understaffed, burdened with heavy caseload, and hospitalized for more than a month. xxx In other cases, the fine was set at eleven thousand pesos (P11,000) for the judge failed to resolve a motion for reconsideration and other pending incidents relative thereto, alleging lack of manpower in his sala as an excuse; decided a case for forcible entry only after one year (1) and more than seven (7) months from the time it was submitted for resolution, considering that respondent judge was grieving due to the untimely demise of his daughter; xxx In another case, the judge was fined twelve thousand pesos (P12,000) for his failure to decide one (1) criminal case on time, without explaining the reason for the delay. Still in other cases, the maximum fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000) was imposed on the judges for delay in rendering decisions in nine (9) criminal cases and failing altogether to render decisions in eighteen (18) cases, taking note that the judge also promulgated his decisions in seventeen (17) cases even after he already retired; failure to decide forty-eight (48) cases on time and failing to resolve pending incidents in forty-nine (49) cases despite the lapse of considerable length of time; xxx There were other cases in which the Court did not strictly apply the Rules as when it only imposed a fine of one thousand pesos (P1,000) for a delay of nine (9) months in resolving complainant's Amended Formal Offer of Exhibits, after finding that there was no malice in the delay and that the delay was caused by the complainant himself. In two cases, we imposed a fine of five thousand pesos (P5,000) on a judge who was suffering from cancer, for failing to decide five (5) cases within the reglementary period and failing to decide pending incidents in nine (9) cases; xxx In other cases, the fines were variably set at more than the maximum amount when the undue delay was coupled with other offenses. In one case, the judge was fined twenty-five thousand pesos (P25,000) for undue delay in rendering a ruling and for making a grossly and patently erroneous decision. In another case, the judge was fined forty thousand pesos (P40,000) for deciding a case only after an undue delay of one (1) year and six (6) months and for simple misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, considering also that said undue delay was his second offense. Finally, the fine of forty thousand pesos (P40,000) was also imposed in a case for the judge's failure to resolve one (1) motion, considering that he was already previously penalized in two cases for violating the Code of Judicial Conduct and for Gross Ignorance of Procedural Law and Unreasonable Delay.[37]
We note that this is not the first
time that an administrative case of the same nature has been filed against
respondent judge. In 1996, in Re: Report of the Judicial Audit and
Physical Inventory of Cases Conducted in the Regional Trial Court of Davao City,[38]
the Court imposed a fine in the amount of P25,000.00 on respondent judge for his failure
to decide/resolve, within the reglementary period, 147 cases submitted for
decision/resolution. Again, in De Vera
v. Layague,[39]
respondent was fined in the amount of
P10,000.00 for undue delay in deciding cases pending before his sala. Still, one (1) case is pending investigation
with the OCA. Under the circumstances, we agree with the
OCA that respondent judge should be fined in the amount of eighty thousand
pesos (P80,000.00).
Also, we would like to point out that
in our en banc Resolution dated
January 30, 2007, amending our earlier Resolution dated January 25, 2005, we
designated Judge Loida S. Posadas-Kahulugan, Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 21,
Bansalan, Davao del Sur, and Judge Marivic T. Daray, Presiding Judge, RTC,
Branch 14, Davao City, as Acting Presiding Judge and Assisting Judge,
respectively of RTC, Branch 14, Davao City.
We also directed Judge Daray to take appropriate actions on the
remaining unacted cases mentioned in par. (a) subpar. 1(c) of the Court’s en banc Resolution dated
ACCORDINGLY, retired
JUDGE WILLIAM M. LAYAGUE is hereby found
GUILTY of gross inefficiency for his undue delay in rendering decisions or
orders and is hereby FINED in the
amount of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00), to be deducted from his
retirement benefits, considering that he compulsorily retired from the service
on
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice
|
CONSUELO
YNARES-SANTIAGO Associate Justice |
|
ANTONIO T.
CARPIO Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA
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 |
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
C E R T I F I C A T I O N
Pursuant to Section 13, Article VIII of the Constitution, I
certify that the conclusions in the above decision had been reached in
consultation before the case was assigned to the writer of the opinion of the
Court.
REYNATO S. PUNO
Chief Justice
[1] Rollo, pp. 802-804.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7] Not among the cases stated in the
Court’s en banc Resolution of
[8] Composed of Atty. Artemio A. Runez III, as team leader and the following, as members: Mr. Roberto S. Banez, Mr. Don Benito U. Maristela, and Mr. Noel B. Buhion.
[9] Rollo, pp. 267-286.
[10] Cases submitted for decision.
[11] Cases submitted for resolution.
[12]
[13]
[14] Not 8, as erroneously stated.
[15] Rollo, p. 455.
[16] This case is included among those decided by Judge Layague as reported in the latter’s Second Partial Compliance and Last Request for Extension dated November 25, 2005.
[17] Rollo, pp. 458-459.
[18] A.M. No. 05-2177-RTJ, rollo, p. 24.
[19] A.M. No. 04-2055-RTJ, rollo, p. 80.
[20] A.M. No. 05-2177-RTJ, rollo, p. 31.
[21] Rollo, pp. 113-263.
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27] These cases were raffled to other
branches of RTC,
[28] Ibid.
[29] Rollo, pp. 807-819.
[30]
[31] Judge Daray’s Letter, dated
[32] Rollo, pp. 821-822.
[33]
[34] In Re: Report on the Judicial and Financial
Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Koronadal City,
A.M. No. 02-9-233-MTCC, April 27, 2005, 457 SCRA 356.
[35] A.M.
No. RTJ-00-1595,
[36] A.M. No. 97-9-278-RTC,
[37] A.M.
No. MTJ-04-1571,
[38] A.M. No. 94-5-178-RTC,
[39] A.M.
No. RTJ-93-989,