EN BANC
A.M No. 02-8-441-RTC March 3, 2004
REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC, Branch 22, Kabacan North Cotabato.
D E C I S I O N
TINGA, J.:
In view of the compulsory retirement on August 27, 2002, of Presiding Judge Braulio L. Hurtado (Judge Hurtado) of the Regional Trial Court of Kabacan, North Cotabato, Branch 22 (RTC Br. 22), the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) sent a team to conduct a judicial audit and physical inventory of all pending cases in his court. The inventory was conducted on July 9, 2002.
According to the audit team's Report dated July 23, 2002, RTC Br. 22 had a total caseload of two hundred seventy-four (274) cases consisting of two hundred twenty- one (221) criminal cases and fifty three (53) civil cases as of audit date. Seventy (70) criminal cases and four (4) civil cases were already submitted for decision. The decision in Criminal Case No. 02-114 was scheduled for promulgation on July 16, 2002. Moreover, four (4) criminal cases and three (3) civil cases had pending incidents submitted for resolution.1 Criminal Case Nos. 96-45, 919, 01-15, 39, 99-112 and 99-113 have not been acted upon nor further set in the calendar for a considerable length of time, while Criminal Case No. 01-32 and Civil Case Nos. 377 and 97-08 may be ordered archived pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92, as amended. 2
Conformably with the OCA's recommendation in its Memorandum of July 25, 2002, the Court issued the following Resolution dated September 2, 2002:
"1. Hon. Braulio L. Hurtado, Jr., Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Br. 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato, be DIRECTED to: (a) INFORM this Court within ten (10) days from notice, through the Office of the Court Administrator, whether or not Criminal Case No. 02-114 was promulgated as scheduled; and (b) EXPLAIN within the same period, through the Office of the Court Administrator, why no administrative sanction should be imposed upon him for his failure to decide within the reglementary period Criminal Case Nos: 97-108, 97-109, 97-184, 97-185, 176, 96-129, 96-29, 99-06, 96-50, 96-51, 96-52, 99-04, 99-05, 267, 97-186, 00-12, 98-41, 12, 96-33, 00-76, 97-72, 97-124, 97-125, 97-126, 97-127, 97-128, 97-129, 97-130, 97-131, 97-132, 97-133, 97-134, 97-135, 97-136, 97-137, 97-138, 97-139, 97-140, 97-141, 97-142, 97-143, 97-144, 97-145, 97-146, 97-147, 97-148, 97-149, 97-150, 97-151, 97-152, 97-153, 99-24, 05, 96-77, 47, 48, 98-44, 1233, 99-96, 4182, 125, 537, 120, 121, 122, 99-155 and Civil Cases Nos. 97-15, 155, 27 and 172 and for his failure to resolve within the reglementary period the pending incident in Criminal Case Nos. 98-73 and 97-27 and Civil Case Nos. 96-07 and 97-15.
2. The Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato, be DIRECTED to INFORM this Court within ten (10) days from notice, through the Office of the Court Administrator, whether or not Criminal Case Nos. 98-77, 97-38, 02-127 and 96-26 were decided within the reglementary period furnishing copies of the decisions thereof and whether or not the pending incident in Criminal Case Nos. 97-23 and 02-29 and in Civil Case No. 01-45 were resolved within the reglementary period; and
3. The designated Acting Presiding Judge in the Regional Trial Court, Br. 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato, be DIRECTED to IMMEDIATELY TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION on Criminal Case Nos. 96-45, 919, 01-15, 39, 99-112 and 99-113 which have not been acted upon nor further set in the calendar for a considerable length of time, and on Criminal Case No. 01-32 and Civil Cases Nos. 377 and 97-08 pursuant to the guidelines set forth in Administrative Circular No. 7-A-02, as amended, dated 21 June 1993 observing/implementing (b) Sec. 20 Rule 141 of the Rules of Court as amended by AM No. 00-2-01-SC effective March 1, 2000."
In compliance with this Resolution, Judge Hurtado submitted a written explanation dated October 3, 2002, informing the Court that the decision in Criminal Case No. 02-114 was promulgated as scheduled on July 16, 2002; the pending incidents in Criminal Case Nos. 98-73 and 97-27 were resolved on August 6 and August 13, 2002, respectively. Accordingly, Criminal Case No. 97-27 was set for initial presentation of evidence for the prosecution on November 14, 2002; and Civil Case Nos. 96-07 and 97-15 were dismissed on July 16 and August 13, 2002, respectively.
Judge Hurtado also explained that Criminal Case Nos. 97-124 to 97-153 involve only one (1) accused. He further explained that his failure to decide the other forty (40) cases was due to his designation as Acting Presiding Judge of Surallah where he transferred for six (6) months.
In a written explanation of the same date, Ms. Sarah Joy Bona (Ms. Bona), the Officer-in-Charge, Branch Clerk of Court, informed the Court that Criminal Case Nos. 96-26, 97-38 and 98-77 were submitted for decision on April 26, June 18 and August 28, 2002, respectively; the decision in Criminal Case No. 02-127 was promulgated on August 13, 2002; Criminal Case No. 97-23 was reinstated in the court's Order dated August 20, 2002, and accordingly set for hearing; Criminal Case No. 02-29 was still in the trial stage; and Misc. Case No. 01-45 was resolved in the court's Order dated June 27, 2002.
Likewise, Acting Presiding Judge Francis E. Palmones, Jr. (Judge Palmones) submitted a written explanation of even date informing the Court that Criminal Case Nos. 96-45, 99-112 and 99-113 were forwarded to the Executive Judge for appropriate action because the counsel for the accused therein is his relative within the 4th civil degree of consanguinity; Criminal Case Nos. 919, 01-15 and 01-32 were scheduled for continuation of trial on October 16, October 29 and November 25, 2002, respectively; the proceedings in Criminal Case No. 39 were held in abeyance pending the termination of another case filed against the accused; and Civil Case No. 97-08 was scheduled for hearing on November 15, 2002. No mention was made on the status of Civil Case No. 377.
In separate Resolutions dated December 9, 2002, the Court noted the foregoing compliance and referred the matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
In its Memorandum dated March 24, 2003, the OCA recommends that Judge Hurtado be fined the equivalent of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits for his failure to decide within the reglementary period seventy (70) criminal cases submitted for decision.3 The OCA considers unsatisfactory Judge Hurtado's explanation that his failure to decide the mentioned cases within the reglementary period was due to his designation as Acting Presiding Judge of Surallah for six (6) months. The OCA notes that the designation referred to was from February 10, 1997 to July 29, 1999, while the records disclose that most of the cases left undecided became due for decision in 2000. Moreover, Judge Hurtado did not heed the OCA's directive for him to desist from conducting trial and instead devote his remaining time in service to deciding cases. 4
However, the OCA notes that Judge Hurtado's failure to decide the cases adverted to is mitigated by the fact that he has been with the Court since 1969 when he entered the service as Clerk of Court and was appointed as RTC Judge on August 29, 1994, the position he held until his retirement. In his long years of service with the judiciary, this is his first offense.5
The OCA also recommends that the letters dated October 3, 2002 of Ms. Bona and Judge Palmones be considered sufficient compliance with the Resolution dated September 2, 2002. In addition, the OCA recommends that Judge Palmones be directed to decide the cases enumerated in letter B, No. 1 of the afore-quoted Resolution dated September 2, 2002 and inform the Court of the status of Civil Case No. 377 which he failed to mention in his compliance.6
No less than the Constitution commands that decisions and matters filed after its effectivity be decided or resolved within twenty-four (24) months from the date of submission for the Supreme Court, twelve (12) months for all lower collegiate courts, and three (3) months for all other lower courts.7 The Code of Judicial Conduct also enjoins judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.8
The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied.9 Every judge should decide cases with dispatch10 and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions11 for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.12 Indeed, a judge must display that "interest in his office which stops not at the minimum of the day's labors fixed by law, and which ceases not at the expiration of official seasons, but which proceeds diligently on holidays and by artificial light and even into vacation periods. Only thus can he do his part in the great work of speeding up the administration of justice and of rehabilitating the judiciary in the estimation of the people."13 Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge.14
From his explanation, Judge Hurtado was only able to promulgate the decision in one (1) criminal case, leaving seventy (70) more undecided. His explanation that he was designated as Acting Presiding Judge in another court for a period of six (6) months is unsatisfactory in view of the OCA's observation that the assignment referred to was in February 1997 to July 1999, more than a year before most of the cases left undecided were submitted for decision.
Clearly, Judge Hurtado was utterly remiss in the performance of his duties. His lackadaisical attitude towards the disposition of cases pending in his court constitutes gross inefficiency, neglect of duty and serious misconduct to the detriment of the honor and integrity of the judiciary.
Considering, on one hand, the fact that he was not able to decide a great number of cases, seventy (70) criminal cases in fact, within the period mandated by the Constitution, take further action on cases pending in his sala for an unreasonable length of time and satisfactorily explain such failure, and on the other, the mitigating circumstance that this is his first offense, we find the recommendation of the OCA to be well taken. The imposition of a Fifty Thousand Peso (P50,000.00) fine is consistent with a previous decision in which the Court imposed a fine of P20,000.00 for a judge's failure to decide three (3) criminal cases even though the Court found four (4) mitigating circumstances in his favor.15 We see no reason why a higher penalty, such as that recommended by the OCA, should not be imposed considering the number of cases left undecided by Judge Hurtado.
ACCORDINGLY, respondent Judge Braulio L. Hurtado, Jr., former Presiding Judge of Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato is hereby FINED the amount of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (P50,000.00) to be deducted from whatever retirement benefits he is entitled to receive.
The letter dated October 3, 2002 of Ms. Sarah Joy C. Bona, OIC, Branch Clerk of Court is considered as sufficient compliance with the directive in par. 2 of the Resolution dated September 2, 2002. Similarly, the letter dated October 3, 2002 of Hon. Francis E. Palmones, Jr., Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Branch 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato, is considered sufficient compliance with the directive in paragraph 3 of the aforesaid Resolution. Hon. Francis E. Palmones, Jr. is hereby DIRECTED to decide the cases enumerated in the Resolution dated September 2, 2002, and to INFORM this Court of the status of Civil Case No. 377 which he failed to mention in his compliance with deliberate dispatch.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Puno, J., on leave.
Panganiban, J., on official leave.
Footnotes
1 Report dated July 23, 2002, p. 1.
2 Id. at 4.
3 Memorandum dated March 24, 2003, pp. 4-5.
4 Id. at 2.
5 Id. at 4.
6 Id. at 5.
7 Sec. 15, Art. 8, 1987 Constitution.
8 Rule 3.05, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct.
9 Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Municipal Trial Court, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, A.M. No. 97-1-08-MTC, 282 SCRA 463 (1997) citing Re: Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., 247 SCRA 519 (1996).
10 Ibid., citing Castro v. Malazo, 99 SCRA 164 (1980).
11 Ibid., citing Secretary of Justice v. Bidin, 41 SCRA 742 (1971); Escabillas v. Martinez, 78 SCRA 367 (1977).
12 Office of the Court Administrator v. Quilala, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1341, February 15, 2001, 351 SCRA 597, citing Ruperto v. Banquerigo, 293 SCRA 704 (1998) and Abarquez v. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109 (1998).
13 Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, A.M. 93-2-1001-RTC, 248 SCRA 5 (1995).
14 Supra, note 7 citing Celino v. Abrogar, 245 SCRA 304 (1995).
15 Baguio v. Torres, 211 SCRA 1 (1992). See also Castillo v. Cortes, 234 SCRA 398 (1998) where a judge was fined P5,000.00) for failure to decide a case within 90 days.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
