FIRST DIVISION
|
Ma. Theresa G.
Winternitz and
Raquel L. Gonzalez, Complainants, -versus- Judge
Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, Respondent. |
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1733 Present: PUNO,
C.J., Chairperson CARPIO, CORONA,
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, and BRION,* JJ. Promulgated: February 24, 2009 |
x------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
D E C I S IO N
LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO, J.:
This
administrative case stemmed from the criminal cases filed against complainants
Ma. Theresa G. Winternitz and Raquel L. Gonzalez, which were raffled to the sala of herein respondent, Judge
Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres of the
Particularly, these criminal cases were
Criminal Case No. 84382 entitled, “People
v. Ma Theresa Winternitz” for unjust vexation; Criminal Case No. 84383
entitled, “People v. Raquel Gonzalez”
for grave coercion; and Criminal Case No. 84384 entitled, “People v. Ma. Theresa Winternitz, Raquel Gonzalez and Remigio Relente”
for grave slander.
According
to complainants Winternitz and Gonzalez, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued
a resolution dated
In his 1st Indorsment[2]
dated November 7, 2003, then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr.[3]
ordered respondent to file her comment within ten (10) days from receipt of the
same. In her letter[4]
dated
In a Resolution[9]
dated
On
In his Memorandum[13]
dated
In his
Report and Recommendation[17]
dated
From the totality of the evidence adduced
by the parties, and after a judicious evaluation and scrutiny thereof, the
undersigned has come up with a finding that the respondent judge is liable for
the charges thrown against her.
Respondent judge failed to present convincing evidence to disprove the
accusation that she is negligent in her duty to resolve the said motion.
Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
provides that “A judge shall dispose of
the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.”
The office of a judge exists for one
solemn end – to promote the ends of justice by administering it speedily and
impartially. Regrettably, the respondent
judge failed in this aspect.
While from the evidence presented by the
respondent judge, it is undisputed that her sala
is burdened with a heavy case load from the time she assumed judgeship in 2001,
and that such case load continues to increase in the following years, yet,
these do not excuse her from performing her judicial functions with dispatch. Notably, she has failed to develop or adopt a
system of court record management which is expected of her. Proper and efficient court management is as
much the judge’s responsibility for he is the one directly responsible for the
proper discharge of his official functions.
Judicial duties extend to keeping track
of each case or matter brought to her sala
for disposition. This is one of the
purposes for which monthly reports and semestral physical inventory of cases in
each court are required to be conducted and reported to the Court
Administrator. These reports serve to
guide the court in the progress of cases pending in their sala. To disregard such
reports would render the inventory worthless, or else we doubt the veracity of
the monthly and semestral reports being submitted by the respondent judge’s
court. A judge ought to know the cases
submitted to him for decision or resolution and is expected to keep his own
record of cases so that he may act on them promptly. As a judge, she has the bounden duty to maintain
proper monitoring of cases submitted for her decision or resolution.
Significantly, during the hearing of the
instant case, the respondent judge offered to prove that she filed a request
for extension of time to resolve the cases pending for resolution or decision
in her sala in the year 2001. This claim though was not sufficiently proven
in respondent judge’s Offer/Memorandum of Exhibits.
Taking respondent judge’s argument that
she did not issue an Order for the
As aptly argued by the complainants and
as can be easily seen from the records of the case, the private prosecutor had
already filed its Opposition and Comment
(to Urgent Motion to Resolve) as early as
Respondent judge’s undue inaction cannot
be countenanced. Complainants’ case
clearly shows that the respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in rendering a
decision or order.
Moreover, the fact of the late resolution
of the Motion for Inhibition and the Motion for Re-raffle clearly manifests
respondent judge’s penchant for delaying resolution of matters brought before
her. Record shows that the Motion for Inhibition filed on 29 July
2004, was only resolved on 30 May 2006, while the matter prayed for in the Motion for Re-raffle (filed on 2 March
2007) was only resolved on 22 January 2008, after the complainants filed on 27
December 2007 the Urgent Motion to Effect
Motion for Inhibition.
An efficient court management system
would have prevented this from happening, and would not have left a void in the
disposition of the said cases from
It bears repeating that the public’s
faith and confidence in the judicial system depends, to a large extent, on the
judicious and prompt disposition of cases and other matters pending before the
courts. The failure of a judge to decide
a case within the reglementary period constitutes gross dereliction of duty.[18]
Hence,
Justice Barza recommended that respondent judge be fined in the amount of
Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00).
We
agree with the findings of the Investigating Justice but modify the
recommendation in regard to the penalty.
We find
unmeritorious respondent judge’s excuse that the reason for her delay in
resolving the motion to withdraw is the lack of notice of hearing upon the
parties. Firstly, she should have
realized that almost one (1) year had already elapsed from the time of filing
of the motion to withdraw on
Rule 1.02. A judge should administer justice impartially
and without delay.
Rule 3.05. A judge should 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
that the mandates on the prompt disposition of judicial business are complied
with. Thus, SC Administrative Circular
No. 13-87 states, in pertinent part:
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 dated
6.1.
All Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and
interlocutory matters pending before their courts. x x x
Judge
Torres failed to act on the Motion to Withdraw Informations within three (3)
months from the time it was submitted for resolution on January 13, 2003. This Court cannot countenance such undue
inaction on the part of respondent judge, especially now when there is an
all-out effort to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the problems of
congestion and delay long plaguing our courts. The requirement that cases be decided within
the reglementary period is designed to prevent delay in the administration of
justice, for obviously, justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the
faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and
brings it to disrepute.[19]
The
Court also takes note of the fact that respondent judge submitted her comment
on the instant complaint only after more than two (2) years from the time the OCA
required her to do so. Her prolonged and
repeated refusal to comply with the simple directives of the OCA to file her
comment constitutes a clear and willful disrespect for lawful orders of the
OCA. It bears stress that it is through
the OCA that the Supreme Court exercises supervision over all lower courts and
personnel thereof. At the core of a
judge’s esteemed position is obedience to the dictates of the law and
justice. A judge must be the first to
exhibit respect for authority.[20] Judge Torres failed in this aspect when she
repeatedly ignored the directives of the OCA to file her comment.
We hold
that respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision or order.
Rule 140, as amended, of the Revised Rules of Court provides that undue delay
in rendering a decision or order is classified as a less serious charge punishable
by 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 P10,000.00
but not exceeding P20,000.00.[21]
It is
worth mentioning that Judge Torres had been twice found guilty of undue delay
in rendering a decision or order in A.M. No. MTJ-05-1611 entitled, “Del Mundo v. Gutierrez-Torres”[22]
and in A.M. No. MTJ-06-1653 entitled, “Gonzalez
v. Torres.”[23] She was fined P20,000.00 in both cases
with the warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more
severely. Considering that this is her
third infraction of the same nature, Judge Torres deserves a more severe
sanction than the fine of P11,000.00 recommended by the Investigating
Justice.
IN VIEW WHEREOF,
respondent Judge Torres is hereby SUSPENDED
from office without salary and other benefits for one (1) month, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same
act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO
Associate
Justice
WE CONCUR:
REYNATO S.
PUNO
Chief Justice
Chairperson
|
|
|
|
ANTONIO T. CARPIO Associate Justice
|
RENATO C. CORONA
Associate Justice
|
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate
Justice
* Additional Member in lieu of Associate Justice Adolfo S. Azcuna (Ret.) as per Special Order No. 570.
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-10.
[2] Id. at 7.
[3] Now Associate Justice of this Court.
[4] Rollo, p 8.
[5] Id. at 12.
[6] Id. at 20.
[7] Id. at 21.
[8] Id. at 31.
[9] Id. at 37.
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14]
[15]
[16]
[17]
[18] Id. at 469-473.
[19] Bangco
v. Gatdula, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297,
[20] Re: Request for the Expeditious Resolution of Case Nos. 4666 to 4669, A.M. No. 04-6-141-MTC, September 20, 2005, 470 SCRA 198, 205.
[21] Supra at note 19.
[22]
[23]