OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant, - versus - PRESIDING JUDGE FILPIA D. Respondent. |
A.M. No. MTJ-08-1708
[formerly A.M. No. 08-5-149 –MTC]
(Re:
Judicial Audit of the MTCC, Present: *QUISUMBING, J., Chairperson, *carpio MORALES, **TINGA, VELASCO, JR., and BRION, JJ. Promulgated: March 25, 2009 |
x----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
x
|
|
|
|
|
D E C I S I O
N
|
|
|
|
|
|
BRION, J.: |
|
|
|
|
We
pass upon this administrative case that the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
of this Court filed against Presiding Judge Filpia D. Del Castillo (Judge Del Castillo), MTC, Maayon, Capiz. The case arose from the judicial audit of the
MTCC, Branch 2,
The Antecedents
On July 14, 2008, the Court issued a Resolution
with the following directives: “(1) Docket the matter as a regular administrative
case insofar as Presiding Judge Filpia D. Del Castillo, MTC, Maayon, Capiz, is
concerned; (2) Require the parties to manifest whether they are willing to
submit the matter for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed, within
ten (10) days from notice; and (3) Direct Judge Del Castillo to decide Criminal
Case No. 97-10140 and to submit to the Court, through the Office of the Court
Administrator, a certified true copy of her decision thereon with utmost
dispatch.”[1]
The Resolution originated from the
judicial audit conducted on
. . .The team leader
was informed that the aforementioned case was “borrowed” by Judge Filpia D. Del Castillo, Presiding
Judge, MTC, Maayon, Capiz, apparently once an Acting Presiding Judge in the
court, “and brought to the MTC, Maayon, Capiz.
A demand was made on the Judge to return the records of the case but, as
of the time of the audit, it did not “materialize.” These (sic) fact is reported in the July to
December 2007 Docket Inventory of the court as the “Judge to whom the case is
assigned.”
The Audit Report referred to “data supplied by a previous audit team who
audited the court sometime in 2006, (that) the trial of the case was handled by
various Judges until
x x x for non-compliance
of defense to formally offer their exhibits, the same (was) deemed waived;
(and) Prosecution was given 15 days from receipt to submit their Memorandum
afterwhich (sic) the case was deemed submitted for decision, as soon as TSN
(was) completed.
The OCA, in a Memorandum[5]
dated April 2, 2008, required Judge Del Castillo “to inform the Office, within ten (10) days from notice, whether the
Guidelines in Mabunay[6]
were observed by her, with respect to Criminal Case No. 97-10140, which is
allegedly in her possession, belonging to the docket of the MTCC, Br. 2, Roxas
City, Capiz, apparently submitted for decision (SFD) during the time that she was Acting Presiding Judge
thereof.”
In her letter-compliance dated
When the incumbent judge
[referring to Judge Elias A. Conlu] assumed as the newly appointed
Presiding Judge of MTCC, Branch 2, in
During the conduct of a Judicial Audit of the said Court
by the Judicial Audit Team coming from the Supreme Court last 2006, the
questioned criminal case record was turned over to the said Court by the
undersigned.
Again, the undersigned presumed that its incumbent judge
had again gone over the record of the said case, knowing fully well that he
assumes full responsibility for all the records of cases belonging in his Court
and that any case record coming out from his Court must be with his personal
knowledge and consent.
After the said Judicial Audit, the said case record was
given back to the undersigned, presumably with the knowledge and consent of its
incumbent judge, supposedly for decision.
With all sincerity, the undersigned was still in a
quandary whether the said case is actually submitted for decision before the
undersigned, considering that the mandatory submission of the required
memorandum has not been complied with and whether or not the Mabunay Case still
rules under the present circumstances, considering its several amendments
thereto (sic) in subsequent rulings laid
down by the Supreme Court.
Judge
Elias A. Conlu, in his letter of
As regards Crim. Case
No. 97-10140 entitled People of the Philippine vs. Lorenzo Cabantug y Alayon
for Reckless Imprudence Resulting in Physical Injuries and Damage to Property,
the record has just been turned over to this Court by Judge Filpia del
Castillo, without any action thereon since her last Order dated
Judge Del Castillo submitted the administrative case
on the basis of her submissions to the OCA.
The OCA Evaluation and Recommendation
In its Memorandum to the Court dated
The case, according to the OCA, was
still governed by the ordinary procedure so that Judge Castillo had 90 days
from February 15, 2004 (the date the case was effectively deemed submitted for
decision) to decide; at the most, the
case should have been decided by April 15, 2004 (the end of the 90-day
period); pursuant to Mabunay,[8]
Judge Conlu, who was appointed on February 9, 2004 and who took his oath of
office on February 23, 2004, “could not be expected to decide the case
unless the parties decides (sic) otherwise since. . .he cannot still (sic)
exercise his judicial functions at that time, but only his administrative
functions.” After assumption to
office, a new judge cannot exercise his judicial functions until he has
undergone an orientation seminar-workshop and an immersion program in
accordance with the Court En Banc’s Resolution dated
E. Before undertaking the orientation seminar-workshop and
while undergoing the immersion program, new and original appointees to the
judiciary, although they have already taken his oath of office, cannot perform
judicial functions. However, they may
act on administrative matters.
The OCA’s verification of Judge Conlu's 201 file
showed that the judge finished his orientation seminar-workshop on
The OCA recommended that the matter be
docketed as a regular administrative case; that Judge Del Castillo be adjudged
administratively liable and fined P10,000.00
for gross inefficiency; and that she be directed to decide Criminal Case No.
97-10140 with utmost dispatch.
Compliance with the Court's Resolution
Issued on
Judge Del Castillo complied with the
THAT with regards to
Crim. Case No. 97-10140-10 pending before MTCC – Br. 2 in Roxas City, the same
had already been ordered DISMISSED last 12 June 2008 when the undersigned
assumed as Acting Presiding Judge of that Court, certified copy of which is
hereto attached as ANNEX “A” for your perusal;
THAT said order dated
That no reconsideration
to the said order was made, the same having become final and executory;
That the said order
dated
Judge
Del Castillo prayed that the manifestation be considered as sufficient
compliance with the Court’s Resolution.
The Court's Ruling
For lack of material facts sufficient to conclude
that Judge Del Castillo was in delay in deciding the subject criminal case, we
can only find her liable for simple misconduct.
An undisputed fact in this case is that Judge
Del Castillo acted on the subject criminal case on
Basic in the OCA’s thinking in making this
conclusion is that Judge Conlu only assumed office when he had already finished
his orientation-immersion programs when he could already perform his “judicial”
functions. Lost to the OCA, however, is
that A.M. No. 99-7-07-SC also provides that a new judge can already act on “administrative
matters” even while undergoing the orientation-immersion programs. Had Judge Conlu done so, then he would have
effectively assumed office when he began performing the duties of his office,
even though they might only have been administrative in character. Without this piece of evidence, we cannot
conclude that Judge Del Castillo had been in delay since the obligation to
decide the case would no longer be hers when she ceased acting as judge of MTCC
Branch 2. To state the obvious, a branch
cannot have two incumbent presiding judges at the same time.
The Mabunay
ruling cited by the OCA and the judicial auditors provide in its material
portions:[9]
Basically, a case once
raffled to a branch belongs to that branch unless reraffled or otherwise
transferred to another branch in accordance with established procedure. When
the Presiding Judge of that branch to which a case has been raffled or assigned
is transferred to another station, he leaves behind all the cases he tried with
the branch to which they belong. He does not take these cases with him even if
he tried them and the same were submitted to him for decision. The judge who
takes over this branch inherits all these cases and assumes full responsibility
for them. He may decide them as they are his cases, unless any of the parties
moves that his case be decided by the judge who substantially heard the
evidence and before whom the case was submitted for decision. If a party
therefore so desires, he may simply address his request or motion to the
incumbent Presiding Judge who shall then endorse the request to the Office of
the Court Administrator so that the latter may in turn endorse the matter to
the judge who substantially heard the evidence and before whom the case was
submitted for decision. This will avoid the "renvoir" of
records and the possibility of an irritant between the judges concerned, as one
may question the authority of the other to transfer the case to the former. If
coursed through the Office of the Court Administrator, the judge who is asked
to decide the case is not expected to complain, otherwise, he may be liable for
insubordination and his judicial profile may be adversely affected. Upon
direction of the Court Administrator, or any of his Deputy Court Administrators
acting in his behalf, the judge before whom a particular case was earlier
submitted for decision may be compelled to decide the case accordingly.
We take this opportunity
to remind trial judges that once they act as presiding judges or otherwise
designated as acting/assisting judges in branches other than their own, cases
substantially heard by them and submitted to them for decision, unless they are
promoted to higher positions in the judicial ladder, may be decided by them
wherever they may be if so requested by any of the parties and endorsed by the
incumbent Presiding Judges through the Office of the Court Administrator. The
following procedure may be followed: First, the Judge who takes over the branch
must immediately make an inventory of the cases submitted for decision left
behind by the previous judge (unless the latter has in the meantime been
promoted to a higher court). Second, the succeeding judge must then inform
the parties that the previous judge who heard the case, at least substantially,
and before whom it was submitted for decision, may be required to decide the
case. In this event, and upon request of any of the parties, the succeeding
judge may request the Court Administrator to formally endorse the case for
decision to the judge before whom it was previously submitted for decision.
Third, after the judge who previously heard the case is through with his
decision, he should send back the records together with his decision to the
branch to which the case properly belongs, by registered mail or by personal
delivery, whichever is more feasible, for recording and promulgation, with
notice of such fact to the Court Administrator.
Since the primary
responsibility over a case belongs to the presiding judge of the branch to
which it has been raffled or assigned, he may also decide the case to the
exclusion of any other judge provided that all the parties agree in writing
that the incumbent presiding judge should decide the same, or unless the judge
who substantially heard the case and before whom it was submitted for decision
has in the meantime died, retired or for any reason has left the service, or has
become disabled, disqualified, or otherwise incapacitated to decide the case.
The Presiding Judge who
has been transferred to another station cannot, on his own, take with him to
his new station any case submitted for decision without first securing formal
authority from the Court Administrator. This is to minimize, if not totally
avoid, a situation of "case-grabbing." In the same vein, when
the Presiding Judge before whom a case was submitted for decision has already
retired from the service, the judge assigned to the branch to take over the
case submitted for decision must automatically assume the responsibility of
deciding the case.
This
ruling laid out in loud and clear terms the responsibility for assigned cases,
the conditions for the transfer of that responsibility, and the primacy that
the presiding judge of the assigned court has over a case assigned to his sala.
Given the Mabunay guidelines, another missing basic piece of evidence is the
inventory of cases that Judge Conlu presumably prepared when he assumed
office. Neither the OCA Memorandum nor
the Audit Report mentions this document, yet it is of critical importance to
find out how Judge Conlu regarded the subject criminal case and what he did
with this case. Significantly, neither
judges made any reference to the inventory.
Judge
What both judges completely missed
under the Mabunay ruling is that the
subject criminal case was a MTCC Branch 2 case and that Judge Conlu, as the
presiding judge of MTCC Branch 2, had the primary responsibility over the
case. He could not have passed on the
case to another judge, even if it had been submitted for decision when Judge
Del Castillo was there and even if Judge Del Castillo had already been in delay
when he (Judge Conlu) assumed office, without the documentation that the Mabunay guidelines require.
That nothing in the records before us indicates
how Judge Del Castillo happened to have the records of the case is a big
evidentiary gap. While MTCC Branch 2
stated that the case was “borrowed”
by Judge Del Castillo,[13]
the latter, on the other hand, said that the records of the case were forwarded
to her for disposition.[14] What the truth really is, is lost to us at
this point, although Judge Del Castillo’s version is more believable; the
records of the case, submitted to the 2006 audit team, were again sent to her
after the audit, indicating that the case was regarded to be hers to decide.[15]
Under the circumstances, it appears to
us that the judges, when they communicated with the OCA, were less than candid
and were trying to pass on the blame to each other with an eye on mitigating
their potential liabilities. Judge
Conlu’s explanation clearly pointed to his desire to be absolved of wrongdoing
in light of his coming retirement. What appears certain, though, is that the
terms of Mabunay were lost on both of
them. While this is gross ignorance
of the law punishable as a serious offense, we do not believe that we should
hold Judge Del Castillo liable for this offense because of the attendant
circumstances of this case. Her ignorance is a breach she commonly
shared with, and was reinforced by the actions of, Judge Conlu who retired on
What
is Judge Del Castillo’s liability under the circumstances? We cannot hold her liable for delay in
rendering a decision; the subject criminal case belonged to another branch and
paucity of facts prevents us from concluding that she had the obligation to
decide the case. That she finally decided the case is in no way indicative of
whether she had the obligation to decide the case. Nor can we hold her liable for undue delay in
transmitting the records of the case; what she failed to do was beyond the act
of “transmitting” which also does not appear to be the exact task she
had to undertake. What she is undoubtedly guilty of was her continued omission
to do anything about the case, either in terms of deciding it or clarifying its
status with the MTCC branch to which it rightfully belonged. This lapse, to our mind, is best classified
under the Classification of Charges (provided under Rule 140, Section 7 of
the Rules of Court) as a simple misconduct – a less serious offense similar
to undue delay in rendering a decision in gravity, but one which more
accurately depicts what she had done.
Lest this ruling be misunderstood, we
are not taking Judge Del Castillo’s gross inaction lightly. By what she did or failed to do, she
exhibited gross insensitivity to her role and duties as a judge and dispenser
of justice, resulting partly from her ignorance of the law. As she openly manifested, the case left her
in a “quandary.” She also forgot
that a judge must administer justice without delay[16]
and be punctual in the performance of his or her judicial duties.[17]
Delay not only results in undermining the people's faith in the judiciary; it
also reinforces in the mind of the litigants the impression that the wheels of
justice grind ever so slowly, and worse, it invites suspicion of ulterior
motives on the part of the judge and casts doubt on the integrity of the
members of the judiciary.[18]
Under Section 11(B), Rule 140 of the
Rules of Court, as amended, simple misconduct, as a less serious charge,
carries the penalty of 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. In light of
the attendant ignorance of the law that we noted above and the delay involved
in the handling of the case, we deem it appropriate to impose the maximum fine
of P20,000.00 on Judge Del Castillo.
WHEREFORE, premises considered,
Judge FILPIA D. P20,000.00 with a STERN WARNING that
a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.
SO ORDERED.
ARTURO D. BRION
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice Acting Chairperson |
|
1.
LEONARDO
A. QUISUMBING
Associate Justice Chairperson |
||||
|
MA.
ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ Associate Justice |
RENATO C. CORONA Associate Justice |
|
DANTE O. TINGA Associate Justice |
|
||
PRESBITERO J. VELASCO, JR.
Associate Justice
* On official leave.
* On official leave.
**
Designated Acting Chairperson of the Second Division per Special Order No. 592
dated
[1] Through the Second Division.
[2] Reckless Imprudence Resulting to Serious Physical Injuries and Damage to Property.
[3] Quoted from the OCA Memorandum of
[4] As quoted from the OCA Memorandum, p. 4.
[5] Issued by Deputy Court Administrator Reuben P. dela Cruz.
[6] Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Sergio D.
Mabunay, RTC,
[7] Signed by Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño, Deputy Court Administrator Reuben P. dela Cruz, and Judicial Supervisor Artemio A. Nuñez III.
[8] Supra note 6.
[9] Supra note 6; see also: Resolution
dated
[10]
Letter-compliance of Judge Castillo dated
[11]
Letter dated
[12] Supra note 4, as quoted from the OCA recommendation, p. 1.
[13]
[14] Supra note 10, paragraph 2.
[15]
[16] Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 1, Rule 1.02.
[17]
[18] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge James Go, et al., A.M. No.MTJ-07-1667, September 27, 007, 534 SCRA 156.