Republic of the Philippines
Supreme Court
Manila
|
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN
THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT - BRANCH 56, MANDAUE CITY, CEBU. |
A.M. No. 09-7-284-RTC Present: CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, NACHURA, PERALTA, ABAD, and
MENDOZA, JJ. Promulgated: February
16, 2011 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- x
PERALTA, J.:
This administrative matter stemmed from the Report dated July
6, 2009 on the judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted by the
Audit Team of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in March 2007 in the
Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 56, Cebu, in anticipation of the
compulsory retirement of Judge Augustine A. Vestil (Judge Vestil), then
presiding judge of the same court.
The report disclosed that during the audit, the trial court
has: (1) a total caseload of
1,431 cases consisting of 555 civil cases and 876 criminal cases; (2) 15 cases submitted for decision,
but were already beyond the reglementary period;[1] (3) two cases with pending incidents
awaiting resolution, which were beyond the reglementary period;[2]
and (4) 247 cases, which had
remained dormant for a considerable length of time.
It was further reported that Branch 56 did not observe an
organized record management. No system
was being followed to facilitate the monitoring of the status of cases. The court records were found to be in disarray
as: (1) court records of terminated and archived cases were mixed with active
cases; (2) copies of orders, pleadings and other documents were not
chronologically attached to the case folders; (3) copies of the minutes of the
hearings/proceedings were left unattached to the case folders and were merely
kept in a separate file; and (4) loose copies of orders, pleadings and other
documents were found merely inserted in the case folders.
Thus, on April 23, 2007, then Deputy Court Administrator
Zenaida N. Elepaño issued a Memorandum, directing Judge Vestil to: (1) submit
an explanation of his failure to: [a] decide 15 cases submitted for decision
within the reglementary period, [b] resolve the incidents for resolution in two
cases within the reglementary period, and [c] take further action on the 247
cases despite the lapse of a considerable length of time; (2) decide the 15
cases submitted for decision and resolve the incidents in two cases; and (3)
take appropriate action on the 247 dormant cases within 45 days from notice.
Likewise,
in the same Memorandum, Atty. Emeline Bullever-Cabahug (Atty. Cabahug), Clerk
of Court of the same court, was directed to devise and adopt a records
management system that will ensure the immediate and orderly filing of court
records, and effectively facilitate the monitoring of the status of cases and
supervise her staff members to ensure prompt delivery of their respective
assignments.
On
June 20, 2007, in compliance with the Court's directives, Judge Vestil, without
explaining the reason for the delay, reported the subsequent actions taken in
the cases referred to in the Memorandum dated April 23, 2007, to wit:
As to directive no. 2:
1.
Civil Case
No. MAN-2910 - submitted for decision in May 2007 as the defendant's Formal
Offer of Exhibits was filed on February 12, 2007 and the exhibits were admitted
on March 19, 2007;
2.
Civil Case
No. MAN-3084 – still pending trial and hearing was reset to June 28, 2007;
3.
Civil Case
No. MAN-4009 - decided on February 20, 2007, or 17 days before the lapse of
the reglementary period. But due to the absence of the typist-in-charge, the
typing of the decision was left unfinished;
4.
LRC No. 638 –
decided on March 8, 2007;
5.
LRC (Fe
Cortes Dabon, petitioner) – decided on December 7, 2006;
6.
Criminal Case
No. DU-3316 – decided on September 4, 2006 and was promulgated on June 6,
2007;
7.
Criminal Case
No. DU-5308 - decided on September 21, 2004. Promulgated set on December 5,
2006. Reset to May 28, 2007. Reset to April 26, 2007 and reset to May 21, 2007.
Pre-trial of other accused was still set on May 21, 2007;
8.
Criminal Case
No. DU-7047 – decided on April 13, 2007; promulgated on March 26, 2007;
9.
Criminal Case
No. DU-7518 – decided on April 7, 2006; promulgated on April 3, 2007;
10. Criminal Case No. DU-7649 – decided on February 9,
2007; promulgated on May 28, 2007;
11. Criminal Case No. DU-9207 – decided on August 1,
2006 and promulgated on April 18, 2007;
12. Criminal Case No. DU-9650 – submitted for decision
on March 1, 2007;
13. Criminal Case
No. DU-11862 – decided per judgment dated October 16, 2006; set for
promulgation on March 1. 2007;
14. Criminal Case
No. DU-12508 – originally set to be promulgated on December 6, 2006 but due
to lack of judges, it was eventually promulgated only on May 11, 2007;
15. Criminal Case
No. DU-13453 – promulgated on April 2007;
16. Civil Case No.
MAN-3762 (Motion to Dismiss) - counsels were required to submit their
respective memoranda with regard to the motion to dismiss only up to
June 11, 2007, thus, not yet submitted for decision;
17. Criminal Case No. DU-10480 (Demurrer to Evidence)- per
order dated May 25, 2007, demurrer to evidence was denied. Reception of Accused
evidence was set to August 28, 2007.
With regard to the alleged dormant cases, Judge Vestil
acted, although belatedly, on the two hundred forty-seven (247) cases before he
retired on August 8, 2007. Some of the
cases were ordered dismissed or archived; others were set for pre-marking of
exhibits, deposition-taking, arraignment, pre-trial or hearing; and, some were
ordered submitted for decision. Judge Vestil, however, offered no explanation
why there was delay in the court's action in these cases.
For
her part, Atty. Cabahug reported that:
(1)
they have already
conducted an inventory of court records in the storage room to properly give
space for cases which are archived, disposed or decided cases;
(2)
they made a list
in separate logbooks - of the cases: (a) forwarded to the Supreme Court, and
the Court of Appeals; (b) those placed in the bodega; (c) transmitted to the
Office of the Clerk of Court; (d) newly filed and transferred from other
courts; and (e) already disposed of, decided or archived;
(3)
they already gave
instructions to the court clerks to note in the Semi Annual Inventory Report
the last action of the court in all the cases assigned to them;
(4)
issued a
memorandum to her staff members to seek permission and enter in the logbook the
time whenever they go out of the office during office hours;
(5)
and suggested to
have a staff meeting every Monday of the month to monitor the concerns of their
staff.
In a Resolution dated March 26, 2008, the Court granted the
request of Judge Vestil for the release of his retirement benefits, “provided
the amount of One Hundred Thousand Pesos (P100,000.00) shall be
retained/withheld therefrom to answer for whatever adverse decision the Court
may impose on him in relation to the instant case.
The audit team maintained, however, that except for Civil
Case No. MAN-3084 and Criminal Cases Nos. DU-9650 and DU-11862 which were
inadvertently included as submitted for decision but were in fact already
decided or still pending trial, all other cases reported in the audit report
suffered undue delay in its disposition. While, Judge Vestil claimed that
certain cases were decided within the reglementary period, he, however, also
admitted that while he was able to prepare the decisions, the same remained
unpromulgated within the reglementary period. With regard to the 247 dormant
cases, while he immediately acted upon its resolution, he however, offered no
explanation for the delay in the resolution thereof.
On
August 8, 2007, Judge Vestil compulsorily retired from service.
Later, on July 6, 2009, the OCA, in its Report, found Judge
Vestil guilty of undue delay in deciding cases and recommended that a fine of
twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00) be deducted from the one hundred
thousand pesos (P100,000.00) previously withheld from his retirement
benefits. However, in so far as Atty. Cabahug is concerned, the instant matter
was recommended to be considered as closed and terminated.
On August 19, 2009, the Court resolved to consider the
instant complaint CLOSED and TERMINATED in so far as Atty. Cabahug is
concerned.
On October 12, 2009, Judge Vestil manifested that since his
retirement in 2007, he had already undergone several medical examinations and
presently his continuous medication costs at least P500.00 daily. Judge Vestil, thus, prays for the resolution
of the instant complaint against him and the subsequent release of the P100,000.00
which was previously withheld from his retirement benefits upon his retirement.
We sustain the findings and recommendation of
the OCA.
A review of the records would show
the undisputed delay in the disposition of numerous cases assigned to Branch 56
which was then presided by Judge Vestil.
There were at least 80 civil cases, some were filed as early as 1997,
which are still pending as of March 2007. Furthermore, at least 100 criminal cases are
still pending beyond the 90-day reglementary period.
In his defense, Judge Vestil sought
refuge from the fact that Branch 56 was saddled with a heavy caseload. We are, however, unconvinced. The Court knew
the heavy caseloads heaped on the shoulders of every trial judge. But
such cannot excuse him from doing his 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.
This, Judge Vestil failed to do. Corollarily, 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.[3]
Hence, all that respondent judge needs
to do is request for an extension of time over which the Court has, almost
customarily, been considerate.
Moreover, as correctly pointed out by
the OCA, it is not enough that he pens his decision; it is imperative to
promulgate the same within the mandated period. The lack of staff that will prepare and type
the decision is equally inexcusable to justify the delay in the promulgation of
the cases.
We cannot overemphasize the Court’s
policy on prompt resolution of disputes.
Justice delayed is justice denied.
Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed
by law constitutes a serious violation of Section 16,[4] Article
III 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.[5]
Furthermore, the 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.[6] What we emphasized before bears repeating:
“It is the duty of a judge to take note
of the cases submitted for his decision or resolution and to see to it that the
same are decided within the 90-day period fixed by law, and failure to
resolve a case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency.” “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.” “The public trust character of his
office imposes upon him the highest degree of responsibility and efficiency.”[7] Accordingly,
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.
Failure to
render decisions and orders within the mandated period constitutes a violation
of Rule 3.05,[8] Canon 3,
of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which then makes
Judge Vestil liable administratively. Section
9, 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.
Here, considering that Judge Vestil
had been previously administratively sanctioned for dereliction of duty,[9] the imposition of fine amounting to P40,000.00
is, thus, proper.
WHEREFORE, in view of all the
foregoing, Judge Augustine A. Vestil is adjudged administratively liable for
failure to decide cases within the reglementary period and is hereby FINED
in the amount of P40,000.00, to be deducted from the P100,000.00
previously retained from his retirement benefits. The Fiscal Management Office
is DIRECTED to immediately release the balance of Judge Vestil’s
retirement benefits after such fine has been deducted therefrom.
|
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M. PERALTA Associate Justice WE CONCUR:
ANTONIO T. CARPIO
Associate Justice Chairperson ANTONIO
EDUARDO B. NACHURA ROBERTO A.
ABAD Associate Justice Associate Justice JOSE
CATRAL MENDOZA Associate
Justice |
[1] Civil Cases Nos. MAN-2910, MAN-3084, MAN-4009, Land Registration Cases Nos. LRC-638, LRC (Fe Cortes Dabon, Petitioner), and Criminal Cases Nos. DU-3316, DU-5308, DU-7047, DU-7518, DU-7649, DU-9207, DU-9650, DU-11862, DU-12508 and DU-13453.
[2] Civil Case No. 3762 (Motion to Dismiss) and Criminal Case no. 10480 (Demurrer to Evidence)
[3] Report
on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 2 and 31, Tagum City,
A.M. No. 04-1-56-RTC, February 17, 2005, 451 SCRA 605, 610.
[4] Sec. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
[5] Petallar
v. Pullos, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1484,
January 15, 2004, 419 SCRA 434, 438.
[6] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Reinato G.
Quilala and Branch Clerk of Court Zenaida D. Reyes-Macabeo, MeTC, Branch 26,
Manila,
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1341, February 15, 2001, 351 SCRA 597, 604
[7] Id.
[8] 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.
[9]
Suspended for one (1) year and fined in the amount of P50,000.00
for dereliction of duty.