RE: CASES
LEFT UNDECIDED BY FORMER JUDGE RALPH S. LEE, MeTC, BRANCH 38,
|
A.M. No. 06-3-112 MeTC
Present:
QUISUMBING, J.,
Chairperson, carpio
MORALES, NACHURA,* BRION, and PERALTA,** JJ. Promulgated: March 4, 2009 |
x--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
We resolve the present administrative matter involving a
judge who left several cases undecided when he assumed a higher position in the
judiciary.
FACTUAL
BACKGROUND
On May 2, 2006, this Court issued a Resolution[1]
(a) granting the request of Acting Presiding Judge Catherine D. Manodon (Judge
Manodon) of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 38, Quezon
City for a 90- day extension within which to decide Criminal Case No. 84543 and
forty- one (41) other cases submitted for decision during the incumbency of
Judge Ralph S. Lee (Judge Lee) in the same court, (b) directing Judge
Lee, now Presiding Judge of the Regional
Trial Court (RTC), Branch 83, Quezon City, to explain (1) why he
certified that he had no pending undecided cases at the time he assumed office
as RTC judge, when in fact there were some cases submitted to him for decision
and remained undecided beyond the reglementary period, (2) why he failed to
decide the cases, (3) why the cases
submitted for decision were not indicated in the Monthly Report of Cases
submitted to the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA); and
(c) requiring Judge Manodon to furnish the Court, through the OCA,
copies of her decision.
In another Resolution dated
Thereafter, Judge Lee
filed a Manifestation dated July 12, 2007 where he informed the Court
that he had already complied with the May 2, 2006 Resolution, with the
submission of his Explanation dated June 20, 2006 to the Office of the Chief
Justice on June 22, 2006.
Judge
Lee explained that from
Of
the remaining eleven (11) cases, three (3) of those were reported by him in his
August 2005 monthly report as submitted for decision with the notation that
they remained undecided because the 90-day period had not yet fully lapsed; he
could not decide them because he had been appointed RTC judge at the time and
had already officially qualified. He provided close supervision to have the
records/orders of the cases completed and the cases were subsequently decided
by Judge Manodon.
Judge Lee attached to his explanation the affidavit of OIC
Clerk of Court Danver Buena. In the
affidavit, Buena alleged that some of the cases included in the inventory for
November 2005 were inadvertently placed in the cabinets containing archived
cases; the MeTC, Branch 38 staff had difficulty in monitoring the physical
location of the case records because the
court was handling more than two thousand (2,000) cases and had no adequate
storage for those cases; after physical inspection of the records, they realized
that the cases had incomplete TSNs or orders.
Clearly, the eight (8) remaining cases could not have been reported
earlier in the corresponding monthly reports as ripe for decision, since the
records of those cases were inadvertently commingled with the archived
cases.
In
a Resolution dated
The
Report/Recommendation of the OCA
By
way of a Memorandum/Report dated
The
OCA pointed out that paragraph 8 of Administrative Circular No. 4-2004,
authorizes the withholding of salaries of
judges and clerks of courts who are responsible for inaccurate entries
in their monthly reports.[5] It opined, however, that because Judge Lee
committed the more serious offense of misrepresentation, the mere withholding
of his salary would not be commensurate with his transgression. Judge Lee's misrepresentation, the OCA found,
occurred when he stated in his
The OCA noted that misrepresentation, a form of dishonesty,
is a serious charge under Section 8, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.[7] Rule 140 prescribes the following
penalties: dismissal from the service
with the forfeiture of all or part of the judge's benefits coupled with
disqualification; suspension from office without salary and other benefits for
more than three (3) months, but not exceeding six (6) months; or a fine of more
than P20,000.00, but not exceeding P40,000.00. Accordingly the
OCA recommended the imposition of a fine in the amount of P40.000.00 on Judge Lee.
THE COURT'S RULING
We find Judge Ralph S. Lee liable for his failure to decide
assigned cases within the period fixed by law.
The records clearly indicate that Judge Lee, who had just
been promoted to the position of RTC judge, submitted a monthly report (for
August 2005) containing grossly inaccurate entries, and a certification that he
left no pending cases in MeTC, Branch 38 of Quezon City, when he assumed his
new position in the RTC. The OCA
Memorandum dated
In
its Memorandum, the OCA observed that the alleged commingling of records
that Judge Lee gave as explanation could have been avoided if the judge had
adopted an efficient system of record management. Several cases remained
undecided beyond the reglementary period because no system was in place. This
lapse, traceable to poor case management, is precisely what the reglementary
periods address and renders Judge Lee liable for undue delay in the disposition
of cases. As we held in Aurora E.
Balajedeong v. Judge Deogracias F. del Rosario, MCTC, Patnongon, Antique,[8] judges need to decide cases promptly and
expeditiously because justice delayed is justice denied. Failure to resolve cases submitted for
decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of the
constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.
The more serious OCA finding is that Judge Lee committed a
misrepresentation in certifying that he had no pending cases submitted for
decision before the MeTC, Branch 38 at the time of his assumption to office as
RTC judge.[9] By submitting the certification, the OCA
concluded that Judge Lee intended to conceal the truth regarding the undecided
cases to allow him to immediately assume his upgraded position of RTC
judge. Indeed, this particular
transgression of Judge Lee, if it were true, is a clear violation of the
requirement that judges should possess integrity as they carry out their
critical role as dispensers of justice in society.[10]
Is Judge Lee guilty of misrepresentation? The charge of
misrepresentation, a form of dishonesty as the OCA puts it, for the purpose of
ensuring a personal gain, carries a grave implication on the member of the
judiciary who committed it. It forever
stains the name of that member and makes him a pariah among those who learn of
his dishonesty. His standing with his peers, even with this Court, would
particularly be affected. For this reason, we examined the records carefully.
We hold, after due examination, that Judge Lee is answerable
only for undue delay in deciding his assigned cases. We arrived at this conclusion by giving Judge
Lee the benefit of the doubt on the charge that he falsified his monthly report
to the OCA (for August 2005) when he reported that he had only three (3) cases
which remained undecided when, in fact, there were eight (8). We likewise accorded him the same treatment
on the charge that he deliberately misrepresented in his certification of
The doubt we entertained arose firstly from Judge Lees explanation
that the 8 cases were inadvertently commingled with the archived cases,
a claim that OIC Clerk of Court Buena corroborated.[11]
We noted that even the OCA acknowledged the corroboration, although it still
found this insufficient to exonerate from non-compliance with the
constitutional mandate to dispose of the court's business promptly. The OCA observed that Judge Lee should
have managed the MeTC, Branch 38 with a view to the prompt and convenient
disposition of its business.[12]
The second reason that made us pause was the lack of a permanent clerk of court
and the physical condition of Judge Lees branch, particularly the lack of
storage facilities that easily could have caused the intermingling of files. Given these reasons, we find that what
transpired was really more of a records management problem, thus negating or at
least raising doubt on whether Judge Lee really had the intention to
misrepresent.
With the eight (8) cases out of the way, we are left with
the three (3) undecided cases mentioned in Judge Lee's report for August
2005. Judge Lee also explained the
status of the three (3) cases. He
indicated in his report that these cases had indeed been submitted for
decision, but the 90-day period had not expired, and he could not decide the
cases due to his promotion as RTC judge on
In light of the
foregoing, we find Judge Lee liable for undue delay in deciding the cases he
left behind in the MeTC, Branch 38, P10,000.00, but not exceeding P20,000.00.
In order not to adversely affect the work of the RTC, Br. 83, P20,000.00 on Judge Lee
considering that his transgression touched on parties right to the speedy
disposition of their cases and the fact that he is already a repeat
offender. We note that, as reported by
the OCA, he had been fined P5,000.00 for indirect contempt by the Court
in an earlier administrative matter.[15]
WHEREFORE,
premises considered, Judge RALPH S. LEE is hereby declared LIABLE
for undue delay in deciding cases.
Accordingly, he is FINED P20,000.00, with a STERN
WARNING that a repetition of
the same or similar offense shall be
dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Chairperson |
|
|
CONCHITA CARPIO MORALES Associate
Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA Associate Justice |
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA
Associate Justice
* Designated additional member of the Second
Division per Special Order No. 571 dated
**
Designated additional member of the Second Division per Special Order
No. 572 dated
[1] Issued by the Second Division.
[2] Issued by the First Division.
[3] Issued by the First Division.
[4] Submitted by Court Administrator Christopher O. Lock (retired).
[5] Revised Form, Guidelines and Instructions
in Accomplishing the Monthly Report of Cases, issued on
[6] Issued in compliance with A.M. No.
[7] Amended by SC Administrative Memorandum 01-8-10-2001.
[8] A.M. No. MTJ-07-1662,
[9] Supra note 5, p. 4.
[10] New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, Canon 2.
[11] Annex 4, Judge Lee's Explanation dated
[12] OCA Memorandum, p. 3, par. 1.
[13]
[14] Judge Lee's Explanation, p. 5.
[15] Zenaida M. Limbona v. Judge Ralph S. Lee, RTC, Br. 83, Quezon City, G.R. No. 173290, November 20, 2006, 507 SCRA 45.