|
Re: Report on
the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch
2, Cagayan de Oro City |
A.M. No. 02-8-207-MTCC Present: Quisumbing,
J., Chairperson, Carpio Morales, CHICO-NAZARIO,* LEONARDO-DE
CASTRO,** and BRION,
JJ. Promulgated: July 27, 2009 |
x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
QUISUMBING, J.:
This
administrative matter stemmed from the August 19, 2002 Report[1] on
the judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted by the Audit Team
of the Court Management Office in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch
2 of Cagayan de Oro City, now presided by Judge Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon.
The report disclosed that as of
The report also showed that Judge Algodon relieved Mr. Alfredo B. Magno,
Jr. (Mr. Magno) as Clerk of Court of MTCC, Branch 2, due to the latter’s
alleged incompetence and inefficiency. Apparently,
Judge Algodon blamed Mr. Magno for the chaotic record management in the court.
Judge Algodon alleged that during her initial inventory of cases, she found
some records of pending cases missing and discovered them with the files of
archived cases. She also discovered that
some criminal cases which were supposed to have been long disposed of were not
promulgated and were merely kept inside the filing cabinet. Judge Algodon further alleged that Mr. Magno
failed to submit on time the reports on 46 cases which were subject of ex-parte
proceedings. Finally, Judge Algodon
revealed that some records of pending cases were found bundled together with
the records of decided cases.
Overall, the
audit team concluded that the loss or erroneous filing of some case records and
the failure to act on certain cases raffled to the court were caused by faulty
records management. It appeared that
Branch 2 did not maintain the prescribed docket books and instead used an
ordinary logbook. The court merely
relied on the case folders to determine the status of the cases. Consequently, the court personnel could not
properly monitor the status of the cases pending before the court.
Upon the recommendation of the Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Court issued a Resolution[2] on
September 11, 2002 directing Judge Algodon to: (1) inform the Court if decisions have already
been rendered in 10 civil cases[3]
and 5 criminal cases;[4] (2)
submit a written explanation of the delay in the disposition of 24 civil[5]
and 12 criminal cases[6]
and to decide said cases within 45 days from notice; (3) resolve within 30 days
from notice the pending incidents in Civil Case No. 99-Oct-858 as well as in 9 criminal
cases;[7] (4)
take appropriate actions within 60 days from notice on 41 civil[8]
and 372 criminal cases[9]
pending in her court; (5) issue the corresponding writs of execution, if
warranted, for the forfeiture and confiscation of bail bonds in 8 criminal
cases;[10]
(6) issue orders archiving 35 civil[11]
and 124 criminal cases[12];
(7) issue alias warrants of arrest in so far as criminal cases are concerned; (8)
furnish Mr. Magno, a copy of his Feedback Report[13]
dated April 30, 2002, within 3 days from notice; (9) decide the cases which
were submitted for decision before Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr., within 90
days from notice; and (10) inform the parties in those cases which were
substantially tried by Judge Evelyn Gamotin-Nery that the latter may be
required to decide the case, or inform both parties in each case that they may manifest
in writing that she (Judge Algodon) should be the one to decide the same,
within 90 days from receipt of said written manifestation.
The Court further directed Judge
Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr., the former Presiding Judge of the MTCC, Branch 2,
Cagayan de Oro City, to explain his failure to decide 14 civil[14]
and 23 criminal cases[15]
within the reglementary period prior to his appointment as Presiding Judge of
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City. Likewise, Judge Evelyn Gamotin-Nery, Presiding
Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Opol-El Salvador, Misamis
Oriental, was directed to explain her failure to decide 9 civil cases[16]
and 39 criminal cases[17]
within the reglementary period during her
incumbency as the Acting Presiding Judge of the MTCC, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro
City.
In the same
Resolution, the Court likewise directed Mr. Magno to submit: (1) a written explanation why no action was
ever taken in 6 civil cases[18]
raffled to MTCC, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City; (2) his comment on the Feedback
Report dated April 30, 2002; and (3) a written explanation of his failure to
make use of the official docket books during his incumbency as Clerk of Court
of the same court. The Court also
directed Ms. Helenita T. Gaccion, Acting Clerk of Court of the MTCC, Branch 2,
Cagayan de Oro City to inform the Court if they are already using the official
docket books for record purposes.
In her Compliance[19]
dated
rendition of
decisions was done. Judge Algodon also reported
that 24 civil cases[20]
have already been decided while 6 civil cases[21]
were raffled to different branches; 8 criminal cases[22]
were submitted for decision; and 4 alias warrants of arrests were already
issued in 4 criminal cases[23]
due to the failure of the accused to appear before the court. She claimed that almost all of the cases have
been disposed of while others were submitted for decision with the assistance
of the newly designated Clerk of Court.
Judge
Pantanosas, Jr., for his part, explained that except for Criminal Cases Nos. 69690,
96-04-2454 and 96-04-2455, he was unaware of the cases cited in the Resolution
since those cases were not accounted for by Mr. Magno. He claimed that it was only after the physical
inventory conducted by Judge Algodon that he found out that there were several
unrecorded cases kept by Mr. Magno. It
appeared that those cases were allegedly found inside a box under Mr. Magno’s
table, his table’s drawers and in the cabinet at the back of his table. Some records were also found in the archives
section. He stressed that he left only 2
cases undecided due to lack of transcript of stenographic notes when he assumed
his position as Presiding Judge of RTC, Branch 20.[24]
Judge
Gamotin-Nery, on the other hand, reported that out of the 48 cases she
allegedly failed to decide, 37 were already submitted for decision, 2 were
ordered dismissed, 1 case was under ex-parte proceedings, 1 case was for
amicable settlement, another was still for presentation of rebuttal evidence;
and 3 cases were requested to be decided by Judge Algodon. She explained that during her incumbency as
Acting Presiding Judge of MTCC, Branch 2, she was also the Judge Designate of
Branch 4 of the same court. Thus, she
had to attend to cases and concerns not only of her official station, the 7th
MCTC of Opol-El Salvador, Misamis Oriental, but also of Branch 2 and Branch 4
of MTCC, Cagayan de Oro City. She
asserted that there was no sufficient time to decide all those cases. Consequently, she requested that she be spared
from deciding Criminal Cases Nos. 96-06-3663 to 96-06-3710 (9 cases involving the
same parties) and Criminal Case No. 98-01-309.
She also requested that she be spared from any sanction in the interest
of justice and equity.[25]
Commenting on Judge Algodon’s
Feedback Report, Mr. Magno, for his part, admitted that he did not conduct any
inventory of cases as he merely followed his predecessors who only submitted
the court’s monthly report of cases to the Supreme Court. He claimed that he had no knowledge of those
cases which were inserted in the bundle of cases that were already subject for
execution. He claimed that he only
inherited said problem of the court. He
likewise stated that the court had no docket book and that cases raffled to
them were recorded only in their logbook. He further reported that Civil Case No.
97-Aug-681 was raffled to Branch 4 and was already decided on
Lastly, Ms. Gaccion, in her
Letter-Compliance[27]
dated
In a Resolution[28]
dated
In its Report,[29]
the OCA recommended that: (1) Judge
Algodon be directed to comply fully with the directives of the Resolution dated
September 11, 2002 since she has yet to inform the Court of the
actions taken on the directives and no copies of the orders, resolutions and
decisions relative thereto were forwarded to the Court; (2) Judge Pantanosas, Jr. be fined in the amount of P50,000
to be deducted from whatever retirement benefits he is entitled to for failure
to decide 36 cases submitted for decision; (3)
Judge Gamotin-Nery be fined in the amount of P10,000 for failure to decide
10 cases submitted for decision with an admonition to be more diligent in the
performance of her judicial duties; and (4)
Mr. Magno be meted the penalty of fine in the amount of P20,000 and
sternly warned instead of suspension from office in view of his health
condition, and that Mr. Magno be directed to comment on his failure to turnover
the confiscated firearms in Criminal Case No. 98-1770 and the fireworks in
Criminal Case No. 99-02-484. The OCA
further recommended that the matter as to Ms. Helenita T. Gaccion be considered
closed and terminated. The OCA noted,
however, that the alleged illness of Mr. Magno was unsupported by any medical
certificate.
We agree with the findings and
recommendations of the OCA except as to the recommended penalty.
We cannot
overemphasize the Court’s policy on prompt resolution of disputes. Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied.
Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law
constitutes a serious violation of Article III, Section 16[30]
of the Constitution.
The honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by
the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency
with which disputes are resolved. Thus,
judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence if public
confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. There is no excuse for mediocrity in the
performance of judicial functions. The
position of judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the law and
the Constitution in the
discharge of official duties.[31]
Judge Pantanosas, Jr.’s explanation that the undecided cases were never
brought to his attention during his incumbency[32]
deserves scant consideration. Proper and
efficient court management is the responsibility of the judge, and he is the
one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official
functions.[33] It should be emphasized that the
responsibility of making a physical inventory of cases primarily rests on the
presiding judge. He ought to know the
cases submitted to him for decision or resolution, and he is expected to keep
his own record of cases so that he may act on them without undue delay. It is incumbent upon him to devise an
efficient recording and filing system in his court so that no disorderliness
can affect the flow of cases and their speedy disposition.
A judge
cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court
personnel since proper and efficient court management is his
responsibility. Court personnel are not
the guardians of a judge’s responsibilities.
The efficient administration of justice cannot accept as an excuse the
shifting of the blame from one court personnel to another. A judge should be the master of his own domain
and take responsibility for the mistakes of his subordinates.[34]
Likewise, Judge
Gamotin-Nery’s explanation fails to convince us. Being designated Acting Presiding Judge in
another sala in addition to her original station is no excuse for respondent
judge’s delay in promptly deciding cases pending before her sala. In Re: Report on the Judicial Audit of
Cases in the RTC, Br. 35, Iriga City,[35]
we said that being designated Acting Presiding Judge in two other salas
is insufficient reason to justify delay in deciding a case for he could have
asked for an extension of the period within which to decide it.[36]
We are not
unmindful of the burden of heavy caseloads heaped on the shoulders of every
trial judge. But that cannot excuse them
from doing their mandated duty to resolve cases with diligence and dispatch. Judges burdened with heavy caseloads should
request the Court for an extension of the reglementary period within which to
decide their cases if they think they cannot comply with their judicial duty.[37]
Hence, under the circumstances, all that
said judge needed to do was request for an extension of time since this Court
has, almost invariably, been considerate with regard to such requests. She did not avail of such remedy.[38]
A heavy caseload may excuse a judge’s
failure to decide cases within the reglementary period but not their failure to
request an extension of time within which to decide the case on time.[39]
As to the liability of respondent clerk of court, it is undisputed that
Mr. Magno was remiss in his duty and responsibility as clerk of court by
failing to adopt a system of record management.
His efficiency or inefficiency in the performance of his duties and
responsibilities does not depend on how his predecessors performed theirs. As the custodian of the court’s funds,
revenues, records, properties and premises, clerks of court perform very
delicate functions and are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or
impairment thereof. It is presumed that
they have familiarized themselves with the various statutes and administrative
circulars pertinent to their functions to effectively discharge their duties
and responsibilities.[40]
Thus, we are not inclined to be
sympathetic to Mr. Magno because he cannot plead his lack of knowledge (or
ignorance) as an excuse. He is presumed
to know his functions and responsibilities.[41]
We stress that clerks of court are essential judicial officers who
perform delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper
administration of justice. Their duty
is, inter alia, to assist in the management of the calendar of the court
and in all matters that do not involve the discretion or judgment properly
belonging to the judge. They play a key
role in the complement of the court, as their office is the hub of adjudicative
and administrative orders, processes and concerns. As such, they are required to be persons of
competence, honesty and probity; they cannot be permitted to slacken on their
jobs.
Clearly, on
this aspect, Mr. Magno is found to be guilty of inefficiency and incompetence
in the performance of his official duties. As pointed out by the OCA, and we quote,
To recapitulate, decisions in Crim. Cases Nos. 61616, 62429, 68940 and in affirmed appealed Crim. Cases Nos. 63041, 96-03-1739, 96-03-1740, 96-03-41, 96-03-1742, 96-03-1743, 96-03-44, 96-03-1745, 96-03-1746, 96-03-1747, 96-03-1748, 96-03[-]1749 and 96-03-1750, were not promulgated but were merely found inside the filing cabinet; Civil Cases Nos. 16286, 16073 and Crim. Cases Nos. 96-02-959 and 96-02-960 were found along archived cases; active Civil Cases Nos. 16403, 99-Aug-616, C-July-502, 96-Nov-970, 99-Feb-155, 98-Mar-0262, 98-Sept-109, 97-Aug-714, 98-Jan-0038, 99-Nov-960, 16701, 97-Jan-061, 97-Sept-753, 12847, and 98-Mar-0918 as well as Civil Cases Nos. 9753, 9779, and 9791 (submitted for decision) were discovered among the files of terminated cases; no ex-parte hearing, as admitted by Mr. Magno, were conducted in cases where respondent was declared in default and that as a consequence no stenographic notes were transcribed particularly in Civil Cases Nos. 98-Nov-1309, 99-June-301, C1-Mar-149, C-Aug-074, mistakenly listed as C-Aug-674, C-Oct-882, C-Oct-899, C-Nov-1074 and 98-Jul-808.
Mr. Magno likewise failed to send Notice of Hearing on January 23, 2002 to the City Government of Cagayan in LRC Case No. 98-03; set Civil Case C1-Jun-391 for preliminary conference while the motion to lift order of default was still unresolved; set the case of Cooperative vs. Aposkahoy Multi-Purpose Cooperative for preliminary conference without an answer being filed by defendant; and failed to [turnover] the confiscated firearms in Crim. Case No. 98-1770 and the fireworks in Crim. Case No. 99-02-484. He also admitted that there was no physical inventory of cases conducted in this court except only upon the assumption of Judge Algodon.[42]
An important duty of the trial court is to conduct a
monthly physical inventory of cases. Thus,
on the clerks of court, as much as on the judges, rests the responsibility for
ensuring that delay in the disposition of cases is kept to a minimum. Indeed,
while the clerks of court are not guardians of a judge’s responsibility, they
are expected to assist in the speedy dispensation of justice.[43]
As branch
clerk of court, Mr. Magno’s duties included conducting periodic docket
inventory and ensuring that the records of each case were accounted for. It was likewise his duty to initiate and cause
the search for missing records. It was
incumbent upon him to ensure an orderly and efficient records management in the
court. His failure to do so constitutes
manifest inefficiency and ineptitude which cannot be countenanced.[44]
As to the imposable
penalty, the failure to render decisions and orders within the mandated period
constitutes a violation of Canon 3, Rule
3.05[45]
of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Section
9, [46]
Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a
less serious charge punishable under Section 11(B) of the same Rule, thus:
x x x x
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) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more
than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. (Emphasis
supplied.)
x x x x
Judge Pantanosas, Jr.’s optional retirement does not
warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said
administrative case moot and academic. It
does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which he shall
still be answerable. Indeed, the Court retains its jurisdiction
either to pronounce the respondent public official innocent of the charges or
declare him guilty thereof.[47]
Section 52,[48]
Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil
Service classifies inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of
official duties as a grave offense and punishable by suspension ranging from 6
months and 1 day to 1 year, for the first offense, and dismissal for the second
offense. There is no showing that Mr. Magno had been earlier
administratively charged and found guilty thereof. The proper imposable penalty, in his case, therefore,
is suspension and not dismissal.
WHEREFORE, Judge Evelyn Gamotin-Nery is adjudged administratively
liable for failure to decide cases within the reglementary period and is hereby
FINED in the amount of P10,500.00 with a STERN WARNING that
a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely. Likewise, for failure to decide
cases within the reglementary period, Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr. is
meted a FINE of P10,500.00 to be deducted from his retirement
benefits. The Fiscal Management Office
is DIRECTED to immediately release the balance of Judge Pantanosas’
retirement benefits after such fine has been deducted therefrom.
Having
been found guilty of inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of his
official duties, Mr. Alfredo B. Magno, Jr. is hereby SUSPENDED for a
period of six (6) months without pay but with a STERN WARNING that a
repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more
severely. Mr. Magno is also DIRECTED
to submit thru OCA, his comment on his failure to turnover the confiscated
firearms in Criminal Case No. 98-1770 and the fireworks in Criminal Case No. 99-02-484
within a period of fifteen (15) days from notice.
Judge
Eleuteria Badoles-Algodon is DIRECTED to fully comply within 30 days
from notice, with the directives of the Resolution dated
SO
ORDERED.
|
|
LEONARDO A. QUISUMBING Associate Justice |
|
WE
CONCUR: CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES Associate Justice |
||
|
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
TERESITA
J. LEONARDO-DE CASTRO Associate Justice |
|
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
||
* Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 658.
** Designated member of the Second Division per Special Order No. 635.
[1] Rollo, pp. 6-20.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Id at 25. CIVIL CASES NOS. 2666, 15801, 16073, 16403, 17209, 98-JAN-080, 97-JAN-102, 97-SEP-833, 97-NOV-943, 98-FEB-177, 98-359, 98-JUN-563, 98-AUG-862 and 99-MAY-299.
[15] Id. CRIMINAL CASES NOS. 63276, 63492, 69690, 74070, 96-06-3778, 96-06-3799, 96-06-3780, 96-06-3781, 97-04-4188, 97-04-4189, 97-04-4190, 97-04-4191, 97-04-4192, 61937, 62429, 70125, 72139, 72925, 73545, 74065, 96-04-2254, 96-04-2455 and 96-12-10850.
[16]
[17]
[18]
[19]
[20]
[21]
[22]
[23]
[24]
[25]
[26]
[27]
[28]
[29]
[30] Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
[31] Petallar v. Pullos, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1484,
January 15, 2004, 419 SCRA 434, 438.
[32] On
[33]
Office of the Court
Administrator v. Quilala, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1341,
[34] Re: Cases Left Undecided by Retired Judge
Antonio E. Arbis, RTC Branch 48,
[35] A.M. No. 97-8-262-RTC,
[36] Gallego v. Doronila, A.M. No.
MTJ-00-1278,
[37] Report on
the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 2 and 31,
[39] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in
the RTC, Branches 2 and 31, Tagum City, supra.
[40] Toribio
v. Ofilas, A.M. No. P-03-1714,
[41]
[42] Rollo, pp. 258-259.
[43] Bernaldez
v. Avelino, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1672,
[44] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted
in the RTC, Brs. 87 & 98,
[45] CANON
3–A JUDGE SHOULD PERFORM OFFICIAL DUTIES HONESTLY, AND WITH IMPARTIALITY AND
DILIGENCE
x x x x
Rule 3.05. – A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
x x x x
[46] SEC.
9. Less Serious Charges. – Less
serious charges include:
x x x x
[47] Office of the
Court Administrator v. Hamoy, A.M.
No. RTJ-04-1830,
[48] Sec. 52. Classification of Offenses.–Administrative offenses with corresponding penalties are classified into grave, less grave or light, depending on their gravity or depravity and effects on the government service.
A. The following are grave offenses with their corresponding penalties:
x x x x
16. Inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties: 1st Offense►Suspension for six (6) months and one (1) day to one (1) year; 2nd Offense►Dismissal.
x x x x