THIRD DIVISION
|
RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE
SALVADOR M. IBARRETA, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, DAVAO CITY, FOR
EXTENSION OF TIME TO DECIDE CIVIL CASE NOS. 30,410-04, 30,998-05, 7286-03 AND
8278-5. |
A.M. No. 07-1-05-RTC Present: CARPIO MORALES, J., Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JR., and SERENO, JJ. Promulgated: August 23, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO MORALES,
J.:
For failure to render decision in at least three cases within
the reglementary period, as extended, the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) recommends that Judge Salvador M. Ibarreta, Jr. (respondent), Presiding
Judge of Branch 8 of the Davao City Regional Trial Court, be fined in the
amount of P15,000.
By letter-request of October
26, 2006,[1] respondent
requested for a 90-day extension of time to resolve four cases ─ Civil Case No. 30, 410-04 which was due on November 2, 2006; Civil Case No. 30,998-05 which
was due on November 5, 2006; Civil Case
No. 7286-03 which was due on November 8, 2006; and Civil Case No. 8278-05 which was due on November 8, 2006. The ground given in his request was “heavy caseload.”
Pending resolution of his
October 26, 2006 letter-request, respondent, by another letter-request of December
22, 2006,[2]
requested a 90-day extension, due to “heavy case load,” to resolve the therein listed
24 cases which included Civil Case Nos. 30,998-05 and 30,410-04, the first two
of the four cases subject of his October 26, 2006 letter-request.
By another
letter-request of January 2, 2007,[3]
respondent sought another extension of 90 days within which to decide Civil
Case Nos. 7286-03 and 8278-05, the last two of four cases subject of his
October 26, 2006 letter-request.
By Resolution of February 12, 2007,[4]
the Court granted respondent’s October 26, 2006 letter-request.
By letter-request of April
23, 2007,[5]
respondent requested an extension of 90 days within which to decide 13 cases
including Civil Case Nos. 30,410-04, 7286-03, and 8278-05, the first, third and
fourth of the four cases subject of his
October 26, 2006 letter-request.
On May 2, 2007, the OCA
received a copy of respondent’s decision in Civil Case No. 30, 998-05, the
second of the four cases subject of his October 26, 2006 letter-request, which
was promulgated on January 2, 2007.
Again, by letter-request
of June 8, 2007, respondent requested, due to “heavy case load” and
“considering further that [respondent was] on sick leave since January 15, 2007
up to the present,” another 90-day extension to decide 16 cases including Civil
Case No. 30,410-4, the first of the four cases subject of his October 26, 2006
letter-request.
Before the Court could act
on respondent’s June 8, 2007 letter-request, respondent, by another letter-request
of July 4, 2007,[6]
requested for another extension of 90 days within which to decide 11 cases
including Civil Case No. 7286-03, the third of the four cases subject of
his October 26, 2006 letter-request (fourth extension) and Civil Case No. 8278-05,
the fourth of the four cases subject of his October 26, 2006
letter-request (fourth extension).
By Resolution of July 11,
2007,[7]
the Court noted respondent’s submission of a copy of his decision in Civil Case
No. 30, 998-2005 (the second of the four cases subject of his October
26, 2006 letter-request) which, as earlier stated, was received by the OCA on
May 2, 2007, as “partial compliance.” By the same Resolution, the Court granted
respondent’s request for extension of 90 days within which to decide Civil Cases
Nos. 30,410-04, 7286-03 and 8278-05, the first, third and fourth
cases subject of his October 26, 2006 letter-request, reckoned from their
respective due dates, per respondent’s letter-requests of December 22, 2006
and January 2, 2007. Respondent was,
however, reminded to indicate in his “future requests . . . the number of times
such requests have been made.”
By Resolution of September
26, 2007,[8]
the Court noted and granted respondent’s letter-requests dated April 23, 2007,
June 8, 2007 and July 4, 2007, again with a reminder to indicate “in his future
request … the number of times such request has been made.” Respondent was
further directed to furnish the Court, through the OCA, a copy of each of his
decisions in Civil Case Nos. 30,410-04, 7286-03, and 8278-05, the first, third
and fourth of the four cases subject of his letter-request of October 26, 2006,
within ten days from rendition of the decision.
By MEMORANDUM of January
27, 2010,[9]
the OCA informed the Court that despite the lapse of more than two years,
respondent had not yet furnished the Court copies of his decisions in the three
cases subject of his October 26, 2006 letter-request.[10]
The OCA thus recommended that respondent be fined in the amount of P15,000
for failure to decide these three cases, and that he be directed to decide them
within 15 days from notice, cum warning
that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
By failing to submit a
copy of each of the decisions on the three cases which respondent was expected
to decide within the period, as extended, the presumption is that he failed to decide
them. In any event, he failed to heed
this Court’s Resolutions bearing on them.
To ensure the strict
observance of the constitutional mandate for all lower courts to decide or
resolve cases or matters within the reglementary period, the Court issued Administrative
Circular No. 13-87 which reads:
x x x x
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 (underscoring supplied)
And the New Code of
Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary which took effect on June 1,
2004 expressly requires judges to perform all judicial duties, “including the
delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable
promptness.”[11]
Rule 3.05 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct[12] also
echoes the mandate to decide or resolve cases or matters within the
reglementary period by requiring judges to dispose of the court’s business
promptly and decide or resolve cases or matters within the required periods.
Heavy workload per se is
not an excuse in not observing the reglementary period of deciding cases. An appointment to the Judiciary is an honor
burdened with a heavy responsibility. When respondent accepted the appointment,
he also accepted the heavy workload that comes with it.
In Buenaflor v. Judge
Ibaretta, Jr.,[13]
the Court found respondent liable for inefficiency and failure to decide the
therein complainant’s case on time and imposed on him a fine of P3,000,
the same having occurred before the amendment of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court
by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC which took effect on October 1, 2001.
Under Sections 9 and 11
(B) of the Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, undue delay in rendering
decision is classified as a less serious charge penalized by (1) suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month nor
more than three months; or (2) a fine of more than P10,000 but not
exceeding P20,000.
Under the facts of the case, the recommended penalty should
be increased to P20,000.
WHEREFORE, Judge Salvador M.
Ibarreta, Jr. is, for undue delay in rendering decisions, FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand (P20,000) Pesos. He
is directed to decide Civil Cases Nos. 30,410-04; 7286-03 and 8278-05 within
fifteen days from notice, and to immediately furnish the Court, through the
Office of the Court Administrator, a copy of each of the decisions therein.
He is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or
similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate
Justice
Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
|
ARTURO D.
BRION Associate
Justice |
LUCAS P.
BERSAMIN Associate
Justice |
|
MARTIN S.
VILLARAMA, JR. Associate
Justice |
MARIA Associate
Justice |
[1] Rollo, p. 3.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10] In the said Memorandum, the OCA
stated that respondent had until October 28, 2007 within which to decide Civil
Case No. 30,410-04, and until November 3, 2007, within which to decide Civil
Cases Nos. 7286-03 and 8278-05.
[11] Sec. 5, Canon 6.
[12] The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary superseded the Canons
of Judicial Ethics and the Code
of Judicial Conduct. However, there is a provision in the New Code
that in cases of deficiency or specific provisions in the New Code, the Canons
of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a
suppletory character.
[13] 431 Phil. 249
(2002).