Republic of
the
Supreme Court
|
OFFICE OF THE
COURT |
|
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2108 |
|
ADMINISTRATOR, |
|
(Formerly OCA I.P.I. No.
08-2-93-RTC) |
|
Petitioner, |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
- versus - |
|
Present: |
|
|
|
|
|
Judge ORLANDO P.
DOYON, |
|
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., |
|
Branch Clerk of
Court, Atty. |
|
Chairperson, |
|
CUSTODIO B.
COMPENDIO, JR., |
|
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, |
|
and Clerks-in-Charge
NOEL B. |
|
CHICO-NAZARIO, |
|
ALBIVA and
JEANNETTE T. |
|
NACHURA, and |
|
SAYAS, all of the
Regional Trial |
|
REYES, JJ. |
|
Court, Branch 34,
Cabadbaran, Agusan del Norte, |
|
Promulgated: |
|
Respondents. |
|
November 25, 2008 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - x
R E S O L U T I O N
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
A judicial audit was conducted on
In a Memorandum dated May 30, 2005,
the audit team reported that there were six civil cases[1] and nine
criminal cases[2]
where no action was made for a considerable length of time; three cases[3] had
pending incidents which were already beyond the period to resolve; eight cases[4] were
already beyond the reglementary period to decide; six
cases[5] had
pending incidents and two cases[6] were due
for decision but were still within the reglementary
period.[7] The audit team also noted that there was no bundy clock in the court even though one was delivered a
year before; the criminal and civil docket books were not updated; certificates
of arraignment were not signed by the accused or his counsel in cases where the accused already entered his
plea; and there were undeposited collections in the
sum of P48,000.37[8] in
violation of Administrative Circular (A.C.) No. 3-2000[9] which
states that collections amounting to P500.00 should be deposited
immediately.[10]
Based on said findings, then Deputy
Court Administrator (DCA) (now retired Court Administrator) Christopher O. Lock
issued three memoranda, all dated May 30, 2005: (1) to Judge Doyon directing him to take appropriate action on the cases
where no action was taken for a considerable length of time; resolve with
dispatch pending incidents and cases that were already beyond the period to
resolve; decide within the reglementary period the
cases already submitted for decision; and submit copies of the
resolutions/decisions to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA);[11] (2) to
Atty. Custodio B. Compendio
Jr., Clerk of Court VI, directing him to apprise Judge Doyon
regarding cases submitted for resolution/decision and those requiring immediate
action; order and supervise the updating of docket books; attach certificates
of arraignment duly signed by the accused and his counsel; explain why the bundy clock was not installed and why he and the staff did
not comply with OCA Circular No. 7-2003 on the mandatory use of bundy clocks in all courts; inform the Court whether the
amount of P48,000.37 was immediately deposited, furnish the OCA documents
showing the same, and explain why no disciplinary sanction should be imposed on
him for failure to strictly comply with A.C. No. 3-2000;[12] (3) to Noel B. Albiva
and Jeanette T. Sayas, Clerks-in-Charge of criminal
and civil cases, directing them to
update the entries in their docket books and submit proof of compliance within
60 days from notice with a warning that continued failure to do the same may
prove valid grounds for the imposition of administrative sanction.[13]
Atty. Compendio
submitted his compliance dated August 22, 2005 stating that as soon as he
received the May 30, 2005 Memorandum, he apprised Judge Doyon
of the cases submitted for resolution/decision and is continuously doing so; he
ordered and personally supervised the updating of their docket books; the bundy clock was not installed right away because nobody in their office was capable of
installing it, and until the arrival of the bundy
cards, they kept it in a safe place to avoid damage; eventually they were able
to set it up and have used the same since June 1, 2005; they have already
deposited the amount of P48,000.37 and will send the supporting
documents within one week; the failure to immediately deposit said amount was
due to the heavy work load of Sayas; however,
necessary measures were already undertaken in order to comply with A.C. No.
3-2000; they did not require the accused and their counsels to sign the
certificates of arraignment because such was not required by the Rules of
Court; he requests clarification on the matter and promises to comply with
further directives of the OCA.[14]
Judge Doyon
retired from the service on
In a Memorandum to Atty. Compendio dated January 2, 2007, DCA Reuben P. De la Cruz
(DCA Dela Cruz) reminded him to be cognizant of A.C.
No. 3-2000 as amended;[16] he
should be familiar with the provisions and forms provided in the 2002 Revised
Manual for Clerks of Court; and, he should inform the OCA whether Judge Doyon has acted on the cases subject of Memorandum dated
May 30, 2005.[17]
Atty. Elizabeth
DCA De la Cruz also sent a
Memorandum to Albiva and Sayas
dated January 2, 2007 directing them to show cause why they should not be
disciplinarily charged for their failure to comply with the May 30, 2005
Memorandum.[20]
In a letter dated
Atty. Compendio
resigned on
DCA De La Cruz issued a Memorandum
dated October 30, 2007 to Albiva and Sayas stating that since both of them had not yet complied
with the directive of the OCA in the Memorandum dated January 2, 2007, they were
given 10 days to comply with the same, otherwise, the OCA would be constrained
to initiate appropriate administrative proceedings against them.[23] In a Memorandum of even date, DCA De la Cruz
also directed Atty. Compendio to furnish the OCA
copies of the orders, resolutions and decisions mentioned in his
Judge Doyon
sent a letter dated March 18, 2007 to DCA De la Cruz attaching copies of
resolutions and orders corresponding to the cases mentioned in the May 30, 2005
Memorandum.[25]
In a Memorandum dated
1.
Judge
Orlando P. Doyon be ordered to pay a FINE of FIFTY
THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) PESOS to be deducted from his retirement
benefits;
2.
Branch
Clerk of Court, Atty. Custodio B. Compendio
Jr. be FINED the amount of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS for neglect
of duty and inefficiency with a WARNING that a repetition of the same
infractions in the future would be dealt with more severely; and
3.
Clerks-in-Charge
Mr. Albiva and Ms. Sayas be
each FINED the amount of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00)
PESOS for a clear and continued disregard to lawful directives of the Office of
the Court Administrator.[26]
The OCA in said memorandum found
that Judge Doyon failed to resolve within the reglementary period nine motions submitted for resolution,[27]
incurred delay in deciding six cases submitted for decision,[28] failed
to decide SP. 43-04 which was submitted for decision as early as July 18, 2005
and no action was taken in Crim. Case No. 2004-116
wherein a warrant of arrest was issued on August 16, 2004.[29]
The OCA also found that Atty. Compendio was negligent in supervising court dockets and
assisting Judge Doyon in the preparation and
submission of the latter's compliance; that he failed to furnish the Court copies of the decisions in SP Civil Case No.
03, “Heirs of Ramo v. Heirs of Ramo”
and Civil Case No. 2000-01, “Morada v. Cosina” and merely provided a copy of the transmittal
letters to the Court of Appeals (CA) without providing information whether
these cases were decided within the required period; and that although he
stated that he ordered the updating of the docket books of Albiva
and Sayas, the compliance of the two still remained
wanting.[30] The OCA likewise found that Albiva and Sayas failed to submit
their compliance even though memoranda dated
The Court noted the said Memorandum
and redocketed the instant case as a regular
administrative matter in the Resolution dated
Judge Doyon
submitted a Manifestation dated September 2, 2008 stating that: the instant
case was filed after his compulsory retirement; he received a copy of the
charges only on August 29, 2008; on March 18, 2007, he submitted copies of
decisions, resolutions and orders of cases to DCA De la Cruz; if some of the
decisions, resolutions and orders were beyond the reglementary
period, it was because Clerk of Court Compendio, who
had already resigned, failed to apprise him of cases for decision and/or
resolution; if his inaction constituted an infraction of rules or regulations
of the court, he was willing to be fined in an amount deductible from his
retirement benefits; he prayed that this case be finally resolved so that he
could be given his retirement benefits and he could pay his mortgages.[34]
Sayas and Albiva submitted a letter, with a 1st Indorsement dated June 5, 2008 by the Presiding Judge of the
RTC Branch 34, Dax Gonzaga Xenos,[35] stating
that they immediately complied with the memoranda of the Court; however, they
inadvertently failed to manifest the same to the OCA for which they sincerely
apologized. Attached to said letter was
a certification issued by Clerk of Court Atty. Fernando R. Fudalan,
Jr., stating that the entries in the court's dockets were updated as of the
date of said letter,
Albiva and Sayas also submitted a
Comment[37] on the
August 29, 2008 Resolution of the Court, stating that they immediately
endeavored to comply in good faith with the same by updating and preparing the
court's semi-annual docket inventory reports covering the required period; however,
they finished the reports within 6 months, instead of the 2-month period given
by the Court; they attached the official receipt from the LBC dated January 14,
2006, the date the docket inventory reports were sent to the OCA; as to the
Memorandum dated January 2, 2007, they sent a letter-compliance dated January
19, 2007 to the DCA manifesting in good faith their long-time compliance with
the May 30, 2005 Memorandum; anent the Memorandum
dated October 30, 2007, they presumed that compliance with the same was already
retroactively carried over in their letter dated January 2, 2007; in Judge Xenos's
letter to the DCA dated February 4, 2008, they again attached their January 19,
2007 letter attesting compliance; after receiving the March 19, 2008[38] Resolution
of the Court, Siwa started to experience pregnancy
bleedings and eventually had a miscarriage on June 6, 2008, a day after they
finished gathering documents to be attached to their letter; in May 2008, they
approached their new Legal Researcher who explained to them that what was
required of them by the Court was the updating of entries in their respective
docket books; it was only then that they realized that they misunderstood the
memoranda and that what they repeatedly sent as compliance to the OCA, i.e.,
the semi-annual docket inventory reports, were not the ones required of them;
they humbly submit that at the time they received the memorandum dated May 30,
2005, they had already updated their docket books in compliance with the
judicial audit in April 2005; what remained was the submission to the OCA of
docket inventory reports covering the period of July 2003 to June 2005;
realizing their mistake, they immediately requested their Clerk of Court for a
certification attesting to the fact that their docket books are updated up to
the present time. They pray for mercy in
the consideration of their case since they are breadwinners of their respective
families.[39]
The Court agrees with the OCA's findings except as to the recommended penalty for
Judge Doyon.
As correctly found by the OCA,
Judge Doyon is guilty of undue delay in rendering
decisions and resolutions.
The Constitution requires trial
judges to dispose of all cases or matters within three months.[40] The New Code of Judicial Conduct[41] also
provides in Canon 6, Section 5 thereof that judges shall perform all judicial
duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and
with reasonable promptness.
The reason for this rule is that
justice delayed is justice denied.[42] Undue delay in the disposition of cases
results in a denial of justice which, in turn, brings the courts into disrepute
and ultimately erodes the faith and confidence of the public in the judiciary.[43] Thus, the failure of judges to render
judgments within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency and
warrants the imposition of administrative sanction.[44]
In this case, Judge Doyon failed to resolve and decide within the reglementary period nine motions and six cases submitted
for decision.[45] While the OCA found that he failed to decide
SP. 43-04, a copy of an Order which was belatedly filed shows that the case was
resolved on
Judge Doyon's explanation that the undue delay was caused by the
failure of Atty. Compendio to apprise him of the
cases or incidents pending resolution cannot exculpate him from liability. A judge cannot take refuge behind the
inefficiency or mismanagement of his personnel.[47] He is
responsible, not only for the dispensation of justice but also for managing his
court efficiently to ensure the prompt delivery of court services.[48] Since he is the one directly responsible for
the proper discharge of his official functions, he should know the cases
submitted to him for decision, especially those pending for more than 90 days.[49]
Judge Doyon's
claim that the administrative case was filed after his compulsory retirement
also cannot free him from liability. In Re:
Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City[50]
and Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Cebu
City,[51]
audit investigations were conducted before the judges' compulsory retirements. However the cases were treated as
administrative complaints only after the judges had compulsorily retired. The Court still held them liable for undue
delay and imposed on them fines, which were deducted from their retirement
benefits.[52]
Undue delay in rendering a decision
or order is a less serious charge under A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC and is punishable
by any of the following sanctions: (1) suspension from office without salary
and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or (2) a
fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
Considering however the number of
resolutions and decisions involved in this case, and considering further that
this is his first administrative infraction in his 11 years of service in the
judiciary,[53]
the Court finds that a fine of P20,000.00 to be
deducted from his retirement benefits is in order.[54]
As to Atty. Compendio,
the Court finds him liable for simple neglect of duty. As branch clerk of court, his duty is to
assist his presiding judge in the management of the calendar of the court and
all other matters not involving the exercise of discretion or judgment of
cases.[55] Clerks of court must diligently supervise and
manage court dockets and records.[56] Their
duties include conducting periodic docket inventory and ensuring that the
records of each case are accounted for.[57] They share in the duty to efficiently manage
the court system; thus, they are expected to act promptly on their assigned
tasks to prevent the clogging of cases in court and to assist in the
administration of justice without delay.[58] While they are not guardians of judges' responsibilities,
they are expected to assist in the speedy disposition of justice.[59] Clerks of Court also exercise general
supervision over all court personnel, enforce regulations, initiate
investigations of erring employees and recommend appropriate action to the
judge.[60]
In
this case, Judge Doyon claims that he incurred delay
in resolving cases and incidents due to the failure of Atty. Compendio to properly apprise him of the status of their
court's cases. The judicial audit team
also found that the court's dockets were not updated; the bundy
clock was not immediately installed and used; there were sums of money that
were not immediately deposited in violation of A. C. No. 3-2000; the
certificates of arraignment were not signed by the accused or by their counsel
contrary to the form provided for in the 2002 Manual for Clerks of Court; and,
Clerks Sayas and Albiva
failed to immediately comply with the OCA's memoranda
despite clear instructions to Atty. Compendio to
ensure such compliance.
Simple neglect of duty, under the
Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Civil Service
Commission Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, Rule IV, Section 52, B (1)
carries the penalty of suspension of one month and one day to six months for
the first offense and dismissal for the second offense. The fact that Judge Doyon
has resigned from office does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative
case against him while he was still in the service and does not preclude the
finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable.[61] That this is his first offense, however,
since he started service in the judiciary on P5,000.00, as recommended by the OCA, is
reasonable.[63]
As to Clerks-in-Charge Sayas and Albiva, the Court finds
unbelievable their claim that they merely misunderstood the OCA's
memoranda; thus, their failure to immediately comply with the same. Memorandum dated
In view of these circumstances, the
Court finds them guilty of simple neglect of duty, which is defined as the
failure to give attention to a task, or the disregard of a duty due to
carelessness or indifference.[67] It carries the penalty of suspension of one
month and one day to six months for the first offense and dismissal for the
second.[68] Because of the fact that this is their first
administrative infraction since they entered the judiciary in March 1998,[69] which
serve to mitigate their penalty, the recommended penalty of P5,000.00 fine to be imposed on each of them is proper.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge
Orlando F. Doyon of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 34, Cabadbaran, Agusan
del Norte, GUILTY of undue delay in rendering decisions and orders for
which he is FINED P20,000.00 to
be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Atty. Custodio B. Compendio,
Jr., Clerk of Court VI of the same branch is GUILTY of simple neglect
of duty for which he is FINED P5,000.00 to be taken from whatever sums may be due him
as retirement, leaves or other benefits.
Clerks-in-Charge Noel B. Abiva and Jeanette
T. Sayas are GUILTY of simple neglect of
duty and FINED P5,000.00 each with WARNING
that the commission of the same or similar acts in the future shall be
dealt with more severely.
Let a copy of this Resolution be
attached to all of their service records.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
RUBEN T. REYES
Associate Justice
[1] Case
Nos. 02-2005, “Sps. Emboy
v. Municipal Government of Santiago”; 03-2005, “Enong
v. Burias”; 24-2002 “DBP v. Sps.
Cabrera”; 4676 “J. Dejolde v. Heirs of R. Cebrina”; SP 19-04, “Deodel Butuan Montoc”; SP 31-04 “C.
Jackson v. A. Jackson.”
[2] Case
Nos. 2003-77, “People of the Philippines v. Maglasang”;
03-110 “People of the Philippines v. G. Orteza, J. Orteza”; 03-154 “People of the Philippines v. Coquit”; 2004-84, “People of the Philippines v. Basig”; 03-45, “People of the Philippines v. V. Aguillon”; 02-76 “People of the Philippines v G.Sudario”; 2004-116 “People of the Philippines v. Santisas”; 2003-99 “People of the Philippines v. Cabugaten”; 00-19 “People of the Philippines. v. T.
Martinez”.
[3] Case
Nos. 2004-54, “Pp. v. Ibay”; 07-2003 “Lor v. Edan”; 6-2001 “Heirs of J.
Galve v. Heirs of P. Cervantes, Jr.”
[4] Case
Nos. 2000-46 “People of the Philippines v. Delquime”;
Sp. Civil 03 “Heirs of Ramo v. Heirs of Ramo”; 2000-01 “Morada et al. v. Cosina”; 998 “Udarbe v. Ybaya et al”; Sp. Proc. 14-03 “Sps.
Sanchez”; 18-2003 “C. Loon v. F. Buyser-Loon”; 01-03
“Napuli v. Napuli”; SP 07-04
“Sps. Aquino.”
[5] Case
Nos. 2004-130 “People of the
[6] Case
Nos. 7440, “People of the
[7] Rollo, pp. 1-5.
[8] See
also Rollo, pp. 17, 20.
[9] Dated
June 15, 2000, “Re: Guidelines in the Allocation of the Legal Fees Collected
Under Rule 141 of the Rules of Court, as Amended, Between the General Fund and
the Judiciary Development Fund”.
[10] Rollo, p. 6.
[11]
[12] Rollo, pp. 17-18.
[13]
[14]
[15] See
Rollo, p. 25.
[16] By
Administrative Circular No. 35-2004 dated
[17] Rollo, p. 31.
[18] Memorandum
dated
[19] Rollo, p. 29.
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24] Rollo, p. 39. In a Memorandum dated October 30,
2007, DCA De la Cruz furnished Judge Dax G. Xenos, who succeeded Judge Doyon
as Presiding Judge of RTC Br. 34, a copy of the Memorandum dated January 2,
2007 which the OCA issued to Atty. Compendio, Albiva and Sayas, since the OCA
had not yet received the compliances of the three personnel regarding the said
memo.
[25]
[26]
[27] Case
Nos. 2004-130 (delay of 19 days); 99-11 &99-12 (224 days); 2004-54 (148
days); 11-2003 (221 days); 6-2002 (84 days); 22-2002 (201 days); 07-2003 (63
days) and 6-2001 (425 days), id. at 206-207.
[28] Case
Nos. 7440 (delay of 202 days); 998 (270 days); SP Proc. 14-03 (100 days);
18-2003 (171 days); 01-03 (57 days), and SP 07-04 (8 days), id. at 207-208.
[29]
[30] Rollo, p. 210.
[31]
[32]
[33]
[34] Rollo, pp. 360-361.
[35]
[36]
[37] Dated
[38] Which resolved to note the Memorandum dated
[39] Rollo, pp. 365-368.
[40] Art.
VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution.
[41] A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, which took effect on
[42] Re:
Cases Left Undecided by Retired Judge Benjamin A. Bongolan
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Bangued, Abra, A.M.
No. 98-12-392-RTC,
[43]
[44]
[45] Rollo, p. 208.
[46]
[47] Visbal v. Sescon, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1890,
[48]
[49]
[50] A.M. No. 05-8-539,
[51] A.M. No. 05-2-101-RTC,
[52] Re:
Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City, supra note 50; Report on the
Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Cebu City, supra note 51.
[53] Having entered the judiciary on
[54] See
Office of the Court Administrator v. Bagundang,
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1937, January 22,
2008, 542 SCRA 153; Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 136, Makati City, A.M. No. 00-7-320-RTC,
November 17, 2004, 442 SCRA 414.
[55] Bernaldez v. Avelino, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1672,
[56]
[57] Office of
the Court Administrator v. Go, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1667,
[58] Bernaldez v. Avelino, supra note 55.
[59]
[60] Office of the Court Administrator v. Trocino,
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1936,
[61] Baquerfo v. Sanchez, A.M. No. P-05-1974,
[62] Per Records Division, OCA-OAS; Bernaldez v.
Avelino, supra note 55.
[63] See
Office of the Court Administrator v. Go, supra note 57; Office of the
Court Administrator v. Trocino, supra note
60.
[64] The
Memorandum reads:
“Anent
the Report of the Team which conducted the judicial audit and physical
inventory of cases on April 29, 2005 at that court, you are hereby DIRECTED to
UPDATE the entries in the respective docket books assigned to you and SUBMIT
PROOF of your compliance within sixty (60) days from notice hereof, with
WARNING that continued failure to do the same may prove valid grounds for the
imposition of administrative sanction.”, rollo,
p. 19.
[65]
[66]
[67] Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia-Rañoco, A.M. No. P-03-1717,
[68] Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, Civil Service Commission
Memorandum Circular No. 19, s. 1999, Rule IV, Section 52, B (1).
[69]