Republic of the Philippines
SUPREME COURT
Manila

FIRST DIVISION

A.M. No. RTJ-05-1937¹             January 22, 2008

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant,
vs.
JUDGE ISMAEL G. BAGUNDANG, respondent.

x- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x

A.M. No. P-06-2267             January 22, 2008

OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant,
vs.
UMAIMA L. SILONGAN, Officer-in-Charge,² RTC-Br. 15, Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao, respondent.

D E C I S I O N

PUNO, C.J.:

As a result of the judicial and physical inventory of cases conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sharif Aguak (Maganoy), Maguindanao, Branch 15, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued Memorandum dated March 24, 2003, directing Judge Ismael G. Bagundang, then presiding judge of RTC-Br. 15, Sharif Aguak, to:

Office-in-Charge (OIC) Umaima L. Silongan, Interpreter III, RTC-Br. 15, Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao, was likewise directed to—

Judge Bagundang submitted his Compliance⁸ in May 2005, attaching copies of the decisions and orders issued by him in the cases mentioned in OCA Memorandum dated March 24, 2003. However, he offered no explanation as to why he failed to decide, within the mandatory period, the cases mentioned in directives (a) and (b). OIC Silongan failed to comply as of that date.

Consequently, in a Memorandum dated June 1, 2005, the OCA recommended that Judge Bagundang be fined twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos for gross inefficiency for his failure to decide within the mandatory period Criminal Case No. 754, and Civil Case Nos. 241, 446, 459 and MC-750; for his failure to decide within the mandatory period the pending motion in Civil Case No. 294; and, for his failure to submit his explanation on his failure to decide or resolve the aforementioned cases within the prescribed period. The OCA likewise recommended that OIC Silongan be directed to explain her failure to comply with OCA Memorandum dated March 24, 2003, and to submit her compliance within fifteen (15) days from notice with warning that her failure to do so shall be dealt with more severely.

In our Resolution dated July 11, 2005, we redocketed the OCA report as a regular administrative matter against Judge Bagundang, and ordered OIC Silongan to explain her failure to comply with OCA Memorandum dated March 24, 2003, within fifteen (15) days from notice with warning.

In her Compliance dated August 30, 2005, OIC Silongan explained that her failure to timely comply with the OCA Memorandum was due to the following reasons: (1) the number of cases involved is substantial; (2) she and Eduardo C. Gesulga, Jr., the staff assistant in charge of the court docket, were the only ones doing the work; (3) Judge Bagundang gave assignments in connection with his retirement; (4) the new presiding judge gave her assignments as well; and (5) she has a pending knee operation which necessitates weekly trips to Davao for medication. OIC Silongan likewise reported on the status of the cases mentioned in directives (a) and (b) of OCA Memorandum dated March 24, 2003. She alleged that she complied with directives (c) and (d) on the date of the judicial audit. In addition, she submitted a medical certificate attesting as to her knee ailment.

In a Memorandum dated July 14, 2006, the OCA recommended that OIC Silongan be fined P1,000.00 for negligence in the performance of her duties and responsibilities as OIC Clerk of Court, with warning that a repetition of the same infractions will be dealt with more severely.

We redocketed the OCA report as a regular administrative matter against OIC Silongan and consolidated the same with A.M. No. RTJ-05-1937 in our Resolution dated September 13, 2006.

We adopt the recommendations of the OCA.

Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

In connection therewith, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

We have repeatedly ruled that the 90-day period is mandatory.⁹ Any delay in the administration of justice, no matter how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case.¹⁰ Not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice, it likewise undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowering its standards and bringing it to disrepute.¹¹ It is only in certain meritorious cases, i.e., those involving difficult questions of law or complex issues or when the judge is burdened by heavy caseloads, that a longer period to decide may be allowed but only upon proper application made with the Supreme Court by the judge concerned.¹²

In the case at bar, Judge Bagundang failed to decide five (5) cases and to resolve a pending motion within the mandatory period, and offered no explanation for it. Worse, he submitted his compliance with the OCA directives only two (2) years after they were issued against him.

Failure to decide even a single case within the required period, absent sufficient justification,¹³ constitutes gross inefficiency meriting administrative sanction.¹⁴ A member of the bench cannot pay mere lip service to the 90-day requirement; he should instead persevere in its implementation.¹⁵ Regarding directives from the OCA, judges should treat them as if issued directly by the Court and comply promptly and conscientiously with them since it is through the OCA that this Court exercises its constitutionally mandated administrative supervision over all courts and the personnel thereof. Failure to do so constitutes misconduct and exacerbates administrative liability.

As to the penalty, the Rules of Court provides that undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge¹⁶ which merits the imposition of any of the following sanctions:

In the case at bar, suspension is not an option considering that Judge Bagundang retired compulsorily on July 10, 2004. However, retirement from the service does not preclude a finding of administrative liability.¹⁸ As recommended by the OCA, a fine of P20,000.00 is warranted under the circumstances considering Judge Bagundang’s failure to explain his failure to decide five cases and to resolve a pending motion within the mandatory period, and his belated compliance with the OCA directives.

With respect to OIC Silongan, having been designated as acting clerk of court, it was incumbent upon her to be cognizant of, and well-versed with, the duties and responsibilities of a clerk of court. RTC-Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao, is a single sala court. Under paragraph D (1.3), Chapter VI of the 2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, the clerk of court of a single sala court performs the functions both of a Clerk of Court in a multiple sala court and those of a Branch Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court of a multiple sala court is the administrative officer of the court and has control and supervision over court personnel as well as over all its properties and supplies.¹⁹ The Branch Clerk of Court is the extension of the Clerk of Court in the branch for administrative purposes, and the custodian of all its properties and premises.²⁰

In the case at bar, respondent Silongan failed to produce three hundred and three (303) cases for examination by the audit team. She was required to ascertain the actual status of these cases, and to submit a report thereon, per OCA Memorandum dated March 24, 2003. She was likewise required to explain why she failed to take appropriate actions in twenty-two (22) civil cases since the cases have been raffled or filed. It was not until the lapse of more than two years, however, or in September 2005, that respondent Silongan submitted her compliance.

A clerk of court is the role model for all court employees under her supervision. The position of clerk of court requires competence and efficiency to insure the public’s confidence in the administration of justice.²¹ With respect to court records, the clerk of court must ensure that they are safely kept and readily available upon request of the parties or order of the court.²²

In the case at bar, respondent Silongan failed to produce 303 cases upon audit. The fact that RTC-Sharif Aguak is a single sala court and staffed by a relatively small number of personnel is of no moment. The organizational composition of a court is dependent upon its particular needs and jurisdiction, and is presumed to be sufficient for its purposes. It is therefore incumbent upon the clerk of court to supervise court personnel in such a way that they all function effectively.²³ Respondent Silongan’s knee ailment mitigates her administrative liability but it does not exonerate her. A clerk of court cannot be permitted to slacken on her job under one pretext or another.²⁴ We agree with the OCA that respondent Silongan should be fined P1,000.00 for neglect of duty.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, Retired Judge Ismael G. Bagundang is found guilty of GROSS INEFFICIENCY, and FINED Twenty Thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Officer-in-Charge Umaima L. Silongan, Interpreter III, RTC-Br. 15, Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao, is found guilty of NEGLECT OF DUTY, and FINED One Thousand pesos (P1,000.00), with WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Azcuna, Leonardo-de Castro, JJ., concur.

Footnotes