EN BANC
|
ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO, Complainant, -
versus - JUDGE IRENEO L. GAKO, JR., Judge, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, and MANUEL G.
NOLLORA, Clerk of Court,
RTC, Respondents. |
|
A.M. No.
RTJ-08-2144
(Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2417-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 B Promulgated: November
3, 2008 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S I O
N
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
This
administrative case against Judge Ireneo L. Gako, Jr. and Clerk of Court Manuel
G. Nollora, both of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 5, Cebu City, stemmed
from a complaint[1]
filed by Atty. Raul H. Sesbreño charging Judge Gako with (a) violation of Rule
3.05, Canon 3, in relation to Rule 1.02, Canon 2 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct for his delay in resolving a Motion for Reconsideration filed in
Special Proceedings No. 916-R entitled “Intestate
Estate of Vito Borromeo,” (b) violation of Canon 2 of the said Code for
acting on the said case after he had recused himself from the case, and (c)
incompetence, together with Clerk of Court Nollora.
The
complainant alleged that on
The complainant
further alleged that on
Complainant also
charged respondent judge and his Clerk of Court of incompetence for failure to
keep all the records of the case intact and for proceeding to resolve the case
with incomplete records. Complainant
asserted that respondents’ incompetency is evident from the fact that when they
turned over the records of the case to the RTC, Cebu City, Branch 9, only 16
out of the 72 volumes were accounted for as shown by the receipts signed by
Clerk of Court Christine Doller on June 17, 2005[3]
and August 11, 2005.[4]
In his 1st
Indorsement dated
When respondent
judge failed to comply with the 1st Indorsement, then Court
Administrator Velasco sent a 1st Tracer dated
For refusing to
submit his comment despite the two (2) directives of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), the Court issued a Resolution[9]
directing respondent judge to show cause why he should not be administratively
dealt with and to submit the required comment both within five (5) days from
receipt thereof, with warning that in case of failure to comply, the Court
shall take the necessary action against him and decide the administrative
complaint on the basis of the record on hand.
On
Respondent judge
explained that the instant administrative matter stemmed from his issuance of
the Order dated
With regard to
his action on the motion filed by the heirs of Patrocino Borromeo Herrera
despite his Order inhibiting himself from proceeding with the said case,
respondent judge reasoned out that since the inhibition was voluntary on his
part as the presiding judge, he felt then that it was also his discretion to
disregard his Order.
Explaining on
how he was able to resolve the motion/s filed in Special Proceedings No. 916-R,
despite the incomplete records of the said case, respondent judge maintained
that his resolutions were based on the pertinent records of the case that were
forwarded to him.
On his part,
respondent Clerk of Court Nollora admitted in his Comment[11]
dated
Upon evaluation
of the case, the OCA, in its Memorandum Report[12]
dated
(a) The instant administrative complaint be
RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
(b) Clerk of Court Manuel G. Nollora, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 5, Cebu City be (a) found guilty of simple neglect of duty,
(b) FINED in the amount equivalent to one (1) month salary, and (C) STERNLY
WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with
more severely, and
(c) Former Presiding Judge Ireneo G. Gako, Regional
Trial Court, Branch 5, Cebu City be (a) found guilty of undue delay in
rendering a decision or order and of violating a Supreme Court Circular, (b)
FINED in the amount of Forty Thousand Pesos (P40,000.00). Considering that respondent judge has already
returned from the judicial service, let the same amount be DEDUCTED from his
retirement benefits.
The Court agrees
with the findings of the OCA.
The Constitution
mandates all lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters within three
(3) months from their date of submission.
Accordingly, Rules 1.02 of Canon 1 and 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct direct judges to administer justice impartially and without
delay and to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within
the required periods.
In line with the
foregoing, the Court has laid down administrative guidelines to ensure the
prompt disposition of judicial business. Thus, SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87 provides:
3. Judges shall observe scrupulously the periods
prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution for the adjudication
and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all
cases or matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from date of
submission by all lower collegiate courts while all other lower courts are
given a period of three months to do so. x x x.
Furthermore, SC
Administrative Circular No. 1-88 states:
6.1 All
Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory
matters pending before their courts. x x x.
Indisputably,
respondent judge failed to act on the Motion for Reconsideration within three
(3) months from the time said motion was submitted for resolution on
All told, the
unreasonable delay of the respondent judge in resolving the motion submitted
for his resolution clearly constituted a violation of complainant’s
constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case. Having failed to resolve the Motion for
Reconsideration within the prescribed period of time, respondent judge is
liable for undue delay in resolving a decision or order which is considered a
less serious offense.
Regarding the
charge of incompetency, it should be stressed that the duties and
responsibilities of a judge are not strictly confined to judicial
functions. He is also an administrator
who must organize his court with a view to prompt and convenient dispatch of
its business. As administrative officer
of the Court, respondent judge should have required his clerk of court or any
other court personnel to secure all the records of the case and keep the same
intact although some of the volumes thereof would not be used in deciding the
case. A judge is duty-bound to motivate
his subordinates for the effective performance of the functions and duties of
his office. In fact, the imperative and
sacred duty of each and everyone in the court is to maintain its good name and
standing as a temple of justice. Hence, any conduct, act or omission on the
part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would
violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to
diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary, shall be condemned and
cannot be countenanced.[13]
Finally,
respondent judge should also be held liable for failure to obey directives from
the OCA. As borne by the records, the
two directives of the OCA, namely the 1st Indorsement dated
We find the
explanation of respondent judge that he suffered a mild stroke to be
insufficient to exonerate him, although it may mitigate his liability. While he may have been suffering from some
ailment, he failed to show that it totally incapacitated him from complying
with the lawful orders of the OCA. The
failure of respondent judge to comply with the OCA’s directives to file comment
to the letter-complaint against him manifested his indifference to the lawful
directives of the Court. In Martinez v. Judge Zoleta,[14]
we held:
Again, we find the need and occasion to rule that a
resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative
complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be
construed as a mere request from the Court.
Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or
selectively. Respondents in administrative
complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the
administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of
the judiciary. Moreover, the Court
should not and will not tolerate future indifference of respondents to
administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such
administrative complaints.
A judge’s (1)
delay in rendering a decision or order and (2) failure to comply with this
Court’s rules, directives and circulars constitute less serious offenses under
Rule 140, Section 9 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a
decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
xxx xxx
xxx
4. Violation of Supreme Court
rules, directives and circulars;
Section 11(B) of
said Rule 140 provides the following sanctions for less serious offenses:
SEC. 11.
Sanctions.
B. If
the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following
sanctions shall be imposed:
1. Suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month
nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A
fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
For his part,
respondent Clerk of Court Nollora, as an officer of the court, is duty-bound to
use reasonable skill and diligence in completing the record of the case even
without any order from his presiding judge, as he is aware whether the record
is complete or incomplete when he receives them. Under the 2002 Revised Manual
for Clerks of Court, the branch clerk of court as the administrative officer of
the court, among others, controls and supervises the safekeeping of court
records. Moreover, Section 7, Rule 136
of the Rules of Court specifically mandates the clerk of court to safely keep
all records, papers, files, exhibits and public property committed to his
charge. As custodian of judicial records, it is incumbent
upon him to ensure an orderly and efficient record management system in the
court and to supervise the personnel under his office to function
effectively. A clerk of court plays a
key role in the complement of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on
his job under one pretext or another. He
must be assiduous in performing his official duties and in supervising and
managing court dockets and records.[15] In this case, he fell short of his duty. Thus, we find him administratively liable for
simple neglect of duty.
Simple neglect of
duty is defined as the failure to give proper attention to a task expected of
an employee resulting from either carelessness or indifference. Under Section 52(B), Rule IV of the Uniform
Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service in correlation with Rule
XIV, Section 23 of the Omnibus Civil Service Rules and Regulations implementing
Book V of Executive Order No. 292, the penalty for simple neglect of duty, a
less grave offense, is suspension for a period of one (1) month and one (1) day
to six (6) months for the first offense and dismissal for the 2nd
offense.
As it appears it
was respondent clerk of court’s first infraction, we find the penalty of
suspension for one (1) month and one (1) day without pay to be sufficient. Furthermore, to prevent any undue adverse
effect on the public service which would ensue should work be left unattended
by reason of respondent’s suspension, we deem it wise to convert his penalty to
the payment of a fine. Thus, in line with
jurisprudence,[16]
we impose a fine instead of suspension, so that he can continue to discharge
his assigned tasks.
WHEREFORE,
judgment is hereby rendered:
(1)
Finding Judge IRENEO L. GP30,000.00 to be deducted from the amount withheld from his
retirement benefits.
2) Finding
Clerk of Court MANUEL G. NOLLORA GUILTY
for simple neglect of duty and is FINED
in the amount equivalent to one (1) month salary and sternly WARNED that a
repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
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 |
(on official leave) RUBEN T. REYES Associate Justice |
ARTURO D.
BRION
Associate Justice
[2]
Denying herein complainant’s Urgent Motion for Satisfaction/Execution of the
[3] Rollo, p. 46.
[4]
[5] Now Supreme Court Associate Justice.
[6] Rollo, p. 13.
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13] Kummer v. Abella-Aquino, A.M. No.
RTJ-04-1873,
[14] 374 Phil. 35, 47 (1999).
[15]
[16] Aquino v. Lavadia, A.M. No. P-01-1483,