FIRST DIVISION
A.M. No. 06-4-220-RTC October 19, 2006
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, CJ:
For so many times, judges and other judicial personnel have been enjoined to abide by three qualities code-named DHL: (1) dedication to duty, (2) honesty in every way, and (3) loyalty to the judiciary. For failing to heed this exhortation, particularly the first tenet, the present respondents are sanctioned by this Court.
The Case and the Facts
This administrative case is rooted in a judicial audit conducted on October 4 to 9, 2004, by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) at the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 2 of Borongan, Eastern Samar. Charged are Presiding Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas, Ernesto C. Quitorio (legal researcher and former officer-in-charge of Branch 2); and Rosalinda L. Obaldo (clerk in charge of civil cases).
Based on documents presented at this Court, the OCA audit team came up with the following findings:
(1) Fourteen cases (11 criminal and 3 civil) were not decided within the 90-day reglementary period. Of the 7 cases in which Motions had been submitted for resolution, 3 -- including a Motion for intervention in Civil Case No. 3554, submitted as far back as August 8, 2003 -- were not resolved within the constitutionally set period.
(2) Ten civil cases remained unacted upon since the time they were filed. Four cases were without further settings.
(3) There were 63 criminal and 60 civil cases, or a total of 123, that remained unacted upon for a considerable length of time.
The audit team also reported that Judge Bugtas had ordered the release of Abraham Elpedes in Criminal Case No. 11071, even prior to the filing of the bail bond of the accused. The release Order was issued despite a standing warrant of arrest against Elpedes in Criminal Case No. 11562 for estafa, which was also pending in the judge’s sala. Respondent was also delayed in the issuance of the orders of annotation of the property bond in Criminal Case Nos. 11386, 11488 and 11492.
Further, Judge Bugtas did not conduct hearings on Mondays; he in fact seldom set civil cases for hearing. Moreover, in his certificates of service, he not only failed to indicate the various dates when no court sessions had been conducted, but he also claimed that he had decided and resolved all cases and incidents within three months from the dates of their submission for resolution.
During the audit, the expedientes of 3 criminal and 5 civil cases could not be presented to the audit team. Twenty-three cases (9 criminal and 14 civil) were not included in the semestral inventory for January to June 2004. Pleadings, orders and notices were not properly stitched to their proper case folders.
Upon the recommendation of the OCA, the judicial audit was docketed as an administrative case; and respondents, including Atty. Crisolito A. Tavera, the clerk of court, were required to file their respective comments.
In his explanation, Judge Bugtas states as follows: (1) while he already decided/resolved the matters pending in his sala, he failed to observe the 90-day reglementary period because of his heavy case load; (2) aside from being assigned cases in Branch 2, he was also assigned to preside in RTC Branch 3 in Dolores (Quezon), and in RTC Branch 4 in Guiuan (Eastern Samar); (3) he ordered the release of Abraham Elpedes upon the approval of a property bond and only insofar as Criminal Case No. 11071 was concerned; (4) he issued the Order for the annotation of the property bond in Criminal Case No. 11386, but ordered the arrest of the accused when the latter failed to comply; (5) he allocated the hearing dates to the different RTC branches in Guiuan, Dolores, Oras in Eastern Samar; (6) there were no court sessions on certain dates because of his health problems, although he inadvertently failed to indicate this fact in his certificates of service; and (7) the other cases included in the report of the judicial audit team were already acted upon.
For his part, Atty. Tavera explained that he had assumed office only on August 2, 2004. When he learned about the pending civil cases, he made representations with Judge Bugtas, and the necessary Orders were issued. As for the records of the criminal cases, Atty. Tavera accounted for and presented them all during the judicial audit. The records not presented involved civil cases already disposed of or transferred prior to the audit. While the records of Civil Case No. 3467 had been misplaced, they were later found. The records of Civil Case No. 3370, on the other hand, could not be located despite diligent efforts. These records, according to the clerk in charge, Rosalinda L. Obaldo, had been missing for a long time.
On June 16, 2005, this Court required Obaldo to show cause why she should not be held administratively liable for the loss of the records of Civil Case No. 3370. Believing that the case records might have been inadvertently mixed with others in the stock room, she collated the files from both parties and was successful in compiling a complete record of the proceedings of the case. Moreover, the RTC issued an order directing both parties to reconstruct the lost records.
With regard to the cases that were not included in the Semestral Inventory of Cases for January to June 2004, Ernesto C. Quitorio, the court legal researcher and former officer-in-charge, explained that the matters had been inadvertently omitted. Realizing the omission after the closure of the report, he added that the subject cases had been included in the subsequent July to December 2004 Report of the docket inventory.
Report and Recommendation of the OCA
The OCA found Judge Bugtas to have failed to decide 13 cases within the reglementary period. While he had requested an extension of time to decide Criminal Case Nos. 10159, 10868, 10418 11099 and 11386, he did so only after the audit had been conducted and the due dates of the Decisions had already lapsed.
With respect to the 123 dormant cases, Judge Bugtas submitted Orders dismissing Civil Case Nos. 3291, 3515, 3628, 3819, 3859 and 3883, as well as a Decision in Civil Case No. 3887. He claimed that the remaining 116 cases had been archived. He failed, though, to submit the pertinent orders for archiving, in spite of constant reminders and follow-ups by the OCA.
The OCA thus opined that the explanation of Judge Bugtas was unsatisfactory. It noted that his inefficiency in the management of his sala led to the loss of the records of Civil Case No. 3370, as well as the failure to include 24 cases in the Semestral Docket Inventory. Accordingly, the OCA recommended his suspension from office for three months without salary and other benefits.
With respect to Clerk of Court Tavera, the OCA said that he had assumed office barely two months before the judicial audit was conducted; hence, he could not have calendared the hearings of 10 special-proceeding cases. It also favorably cited his explanation that, at the time, he was awaiting the orders of Judge Bugtas to fix the dates and places of the hearings.
Legal Researcher and former Officer-in-Charge Quitorio, however, was found by the OCA to be remiss in the performance of his duties. He had failed to submit an accurate Semestral Docket Inventory of Cases for the period January to June 2004. He was also held responsible for the loss of the records of Civil Case No. 3370. For his transgressions, the OCA recommended a fine of ₱3,000.
Finally, the OCA found that Rosalinda L. Obaldo, as the clerk who was in charge of civil cases in Branch 2, should be made liable for the loss of the records of Civil Case No. 3370 and the misplacement of those of Civil Case Nos. 3467 and 3622. Although the OCA concluded that Obaldo was guilty of simple neglect of duty, it reasoned that a fine of ₱2,000 was in order, considering that this was her first offense. Moreover, she had exerted utmost effort to reconstitute the records of Civil Case No. 3370 and to locate the two misplaced records.
The Court’s Ruling
The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA.
Administrative Liability
In Re: Report on the Financial Audit Conducted at the MCTC-Mabalacat, Pampanga,1 this Court declared:
"Time and time again, this Court has stressed that those charged with the dispensation of justice -- from the presiding judge to the lowliest clerk -- are circumscribed with a heavy burden of responsibility. Their conduct at all times must not only be characterized by propriety and decorum but, above all else, must be beyond suspicion. Every employee should be an example of integrity, uprightness and honesty."2
Judging from the disorderly state of affairs in Branch 2, it is apparent that some of its personnel, including its presiding judge, have failed to meet the stringent standards required of court employees; namely, dedication to duty, honesty at all times and loyalty to the judiciary.
Section 15(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. Moreover, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, directs judges to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."
It is axiomatic that the office of a judge shall exact nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the discharge of official duties. Judges must also closely adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to preserve the integrity, competence and independence of the judiciary and make the administration of justice more efficient.3
The Court is aware of the heavy case load of trial courts. Hence, it has been largely sympathetic to requests for reasonable extensions of time to decide cases.4 Upon realizing that he would not be able to comply with the 90-day period, Judge Bugtas should have asked the Court for a reasonable extension prior to the expiration of the period. Instead, he waited till the due dates of the Decisions had already lapsed and the audit conducted.
Judges cannot by themselves choose to prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Without an order of extension granted by this Court, the failure to decide a case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency that is administratively sanctioned.5
The disorderly affairs of the court further showed that Judge Bugtas was grossly inefficient.1âwphi1 Proper court management is the responsibility of judges. As the top administrative officers of the court, they should organize and supervise personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. Moreover, they should "require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity."6
Under A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, amending Rule 140 on the Discipline of Justices and Judges, undue delay in rendering a decision or order and making untruthful statements in the Certificate of Service are both categorized as less serious charges. For these offenses, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or (b) a fine of more than ₱10,000 but not more than ₱20,000. Considering that this is not Judge Bugtas’ first offense,7 a penalty of suspension from office for three months without salary and other benefits, as recommended by the OCA, would have been appropriate. Since this Court, however, has already approved his optional retirement in its July 3, 2006 Resolution,8 it deems it proper to impose on him a fine equivalent to three months’ salary, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
The OCA also correctly found Ernesto C. Quitorio, officer-in-charge prior to the regular clerk of court’s assumption of office, to be remiss in his duties. Quitorio had failed to submit an accurate Semestral Docket Inventory of Cases for the period January to June 2004. Moreover, he should also be held liable for the court’s disorganized record management system, a situation that led to the loss of the records of Civil Case No. 3370.
Delicate functions are performed by clerks of court and officers-in-charge, who are the designated custodians of the court’s funds, revenues, records, properties and premises. As such, they are also the treasurers, accountants, guards and physical plant managers of their respective courts.9 Thus, although it was Rosalinda L. Obaldo who was responsible for the safekeeping of civil cases, Quitorio -- as officer-in-charge -- shared responsibility for the loss of the documents.1âwphi1
For sure, Obaldo, the clerk in charge of civil cases in Branch 2, was directly accountable for the loss of the records of Civil Case No. 3370. As an officer of the court, she was expected to discharge her duty of ensuring the safekeeping of court records with diligence, efficiency and professionalism. Consonant with this duty, she should have seen to it that the records were kept in a secure place.10
WHEREFORE, Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas is found GUILTY of gross inefficiency and FINED in an amount equivalent to his three-month salary to be deducted from his retirement pay.
Ernesto C. Quitorio and Rosalinda L. Obaldo are both found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and are FINED in the amount of ₱3,000 and ₱2,000, respectively. They are WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The charges against Clerk of Court Crisolito A. Tavera are DISMISSED.
SO ORDERED.
ARTEMIO V. PANGANIBAN
Chief Justice
Chairperson, First Division
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice |
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice |
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR.
Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO
Associate Justice |
Footnotes
1 AM No. P-05-1989, October 20, 2005 (citing In Re: Delayed Remittance of Collections of Odtuhan, 445 Phil. 220, February 11, 2003; Office of the Court Administrator v. Galo, 373 Phil. 483, September 21, 1999; Cosca v. Palaypayon, Jr., 237 SCRA 249, September 30, 1994).
2 Id., per Panganiban, J. (now CJ).
3 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-Br. 47, Urdaneta City, AM No. RTJ-05-1968, January 31, 2006; Office of the Court Administrator v. Alumbres, AM No. RTJ-05-1965, January 23, 2006.
4 Office of the Court Administrator v. Alumbres, supra; Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-Brs. 1, 2 & 3, Mandaue City, 406 SCRA 285, July 17, 2003; Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTC, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, 418 Phil. 77, September 24, 2001; Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branch 61, 385 Phil. 250, March 21, 2000.
5 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-Br. 47, Urdaneta City, supra; Saceda v. Gestopa, Jr., 423 Phil. 420, December 13, 2001.
6 Beltran v. Paderanga, 455 Phil. 227, July 31, 2003, per Bellosillo, J.; Aguilar v. How, 455 Phil. 237, July 31, 2003; Nidua v. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581, June 29, 1989.
7 In Atty. Vicente B. Montes v. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas, AM RTJ-01-1627, April 17, 2001, Judge Bugtas was fined ₱5,000 for failure to decide a case within the reglementary period. He was later fined ₱20,000 in Thelma C. Baldado v. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas (AM RTJ-00-1586, October 24, 2003), for granting execution pending appeal in an election protest case despite the transmission of the records to the appellate court. In Rosalia Docena-Caspe v. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas, AM RTJ-03-1767, March 28, 2003, he was again fined ₱20,000 for granting bail to the accused in a murder case without conducting any hearing. Finally, in Atty. Juliana Adalim-White v. Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas, AM RTJ-02-1738, November 17, 2005, a fine of ₱40,000 was imposed upon him for releasing on recognizance a person convicted of frustrated murder, even before the latter had served the minimum period of his sentence.
8 Re: Application for Optional Retirement under RA 910, as Amended by RA 5095 of Hon. Arnulfo O. Bugtas, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar, A.M. No. 12360-Ret.
9 Toribio v. Ofilas, 422 SCRA 534, February 13, 2004; Re: Misappropriation of the Judiciary Fund Collections by Juliet C. Banag, Clerk of Court, MTC, Plaridel, Bulacan, 420 SCRA 150, January 20, 2004; De la Victoria v. Cañete, 427 Phil. 775, February 21, 2002.
10 Panuncio v. Espiritu, 432 Phil. 1, May 28, 2002.
The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation
