FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-20-2594. December 9, 2020.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4922-RTJ]
MACAPANTAO C. CAO, complainant,vs. PRESIDING JUDGE VINCENT FILOMENO B. ROSALES, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 23, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated December 9, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. RTJ-20-2594 [formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4922-RTJ] — MACAPANTAO C. CAO,complainant, v. PRESIDING JUDGE VINCENT FILOMENO B. ROSALES, Regional Trial Court, Branch 23, Cagayan De Oro City, Misamis Oriental,respondent. CAIHTE
Before the Court is a Complaint 1 dated January 31, 2019, filed against Presiding Judge Vincent Filomena B. Rosales (Judge Rosales) of Branch 23, Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Cagayan De Oro City, Misamis Oriental.
The Case
Complainant Macapantao C. Cao (Cao) is the petitioner in a special civil action for mandamus, which he filed sometime in March 2012 against the local government unit (LGU) of Maguing, Lanao del Sur, its Municipal Treasurer, and its Sangguniang Bayan. Cao filed the petition for mandamus to compel the payment of his retirement pay, which he allegedly has not received since he retired as the Municipal Treasurer in 2011. 2
The petition was docketed as Civil Case No. 2012-071 and was initially raffled to Branch 38, RTC of Misamis Oriental. It was later transferred to the sala of Judge Rosales in Branch 23. Judge Rosales conducted hearings from June to October 2014, during which time, only Cao and his counsel appeared. 3
In January 2015, the Hall of Justice of Cagayan De Oro was razed by fire, which unfortunately included Branch 23. Cao later applied for the reconstitution of the records of the case, and thereafter, a clarificatory hearing was scheduled on May 25, 2016. Again, none of the impleaded defendants appeared during the hearing, which prompted Judge Rosales to reschedule the case for preliminary conference on August 11, 2016. 4
On the rescheduled date of the preliminary conference, only Cao and his counsel were present. He thus moved to be allowed to present evidence ex parte and for the issuance of an order declaring the defendants in default. Judge Rosales granted this motion and set the case for reception of evidence ex parte on September 30, 2016. 5
In a Motion for Reconsideration 6 dated September 15, 2016, the defendants in the action for mandamus sought to reconsider the order of default and further prayed for the dismissal of the petition, or its transfer to the RTC of Lanao del Sur. The defendants averred that the Rules of Court is clear — the action for mandamus should be filed with the RTC exercising territorial jurisdiction over the defendants. Since the petition relates to an act or omission of the defendants LGU of Maguing, Lanao del Sur and its Sangguniang Bayan, it was averred that the RTC of Lanao del Sur has territorial jurisdiction over the action. 7
Cao opposed the motion. 8 Thereafter, in a Resolution 9 dated October 4, 2016, Judge Rosales granted the defendants' motion and set aside the order of default. The petition for mandamus was also dismissed for lack of jurisdiction. 10
Aggrieved, Cao filed a Motion for Reconsideration 11 on October 24, 2016. The motion remained unresolved for more than one (1) year, prompting Cao to file another motion for the resolution of the motion for reconsideration 12 on October 10, 2017. As of the filing of Cao's complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on February 14, 2019, Judge Rosales had not yet acted upon her motion. The unexplained delay in the resolution of his motion and the absolute absence of updates from the trial court thus constrained Cao to file the present complaint, "in order to compel [Judge Rosales] to discharge his public function." 13
On March 11, 2019, the OCA directed Judge Rosales to comment. 14 In his Comment 15 dated April 29, 2019, Judge Rosales admitted that the resolution of Cao's Motion for Reconsideration remained pending for more than two (2) years. He justified the delay by stating that his Clerk of Court, Atty. Glerma C. Cabrera (Atty. Cabrera), inadvertently omitted to include the Motion for Reconsideration in the list of active cases in his sala. To support this claim, Judge Rosales enclosed a letter of apology from Atty. Cabrera, where she apologized for her omission. She stated that after a fire engulfed the Hall of Justice, they were cramped in the Tourism Hall of the Cagayan de Oro City Hall. There being no proper area for the storage of their records, Atty. Cabrera posited that it might be during this time that the records were misplaced, resulting in the prolonged delay in the resolution of the motion. 16
Judge Rosales likewise attributed the delay to the difficult circumstances that followed after the Hall of Justice burned down. Furthermore, his court was designated as a Special Drugs Court in July 2015, which shifted his focus towards the hearing and disposition of numerous drug cases, pursuant to the Rule on Continuous Trial. Finally, he averred that the motion was already resolved in a Resolution 17 dated April 15, 2019. 18
OCA Report and Recommendation
On September 24, 2020, the OCA submitted its Report 19 to the Court, which found Judge Rosales liable for Undue Delay in Rendering an Order. The Motion for Reconsideration filed by Cao was resolved after approximately two (2) years and five (5) months from the time it was filed on October 24, 2016. This is evidently beyond the 90-day reglementary period under the Constitution. 20 DETACa
The OCA also found no merit in the justification of Judge Rosales in his comment. The fire that destroyed the Hall of Justice of Cagayan De Oro occurred on January 30, 2015. As such, at the time Cao filed the Motion for Reconsideration, the RTC was already functioning. Cao also diligently filed a motion for resolution on October 6, 2017, and made a personal follow-up in December 2018. Lastly, the OCA did not consider meritorious the attribution of the cause of delay to the Clerk of Court, as judges are expected to keep their own record of cases and that they may act on them properly. 21
Considering that this is the first administrative infraction of Judge Rosales, the OCA made the following recommendations to the Court:
1) the instant administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Vincent Filomeno B. Rosales, Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan De Oro City, Misamis Oriental, be REDOCKETED as an administrative matter;
2) respondent Judge Rosales be found GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering an Order and accordingly be REPRIMANDED, with STERNWARNING that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely by the Court; and
3) Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Glerma C. Cabrera be STERNLY REMINDED to be more assiduous in the performance of her duties as Clerk of Court. 22
On November 9, 2020, the Court adopted the OCA's recommendation to re-docket the complaint as an administrative matter.
The Court's Ruling
The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA.
The Constitution prescribes that matters before lower courts should be resolved within a period of three (3) months. 23 In line with this mandate, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary 24 provides:
SECTION 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
In Supreme Court Circular No. 13-87, 25 judges are enjoined to "observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts." Judges are again reminded of these periods in the Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 03-99. 26 Additionally, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-88 27 reminds judges to "endeavor to act to promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts."
With the issuance of these guidelines, the policy of the Court on the prompt disposition and resolution of cases is clear. Judges are expected to adhere to the period prescribed under the Constitution for resolving cases and matters. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions on them, as the delay in the dispensation of justice is tantamount to the erosion of the public's faith on the judiciary. 28
Judge Rosales himself admits that he was remiss in his duty but he reasons that the delay was due to the difficulties of having a makeshift office after the fire destroyed the Hall of Justice of Cagayan De Oro. However, the OCA aptly observed that more than twenty (20) months had passed since this incident occurred on January 30, 2015. Judge Rosales even conducted a clarificatory hearing on Cao's action for mandamus after the fire occurred. Thus, the constraints in the physical facilities in the office of Judge Rosales do not sufficiently justify the two-year delay in the resolution of the motion. Likewise, Judge Rosales cannot escape his liability by citing the neglect of his Clerk of Court. Cao followed-up on the status of his motion on separate occasions before filing the present administrative complaint — on October 6, 2017, through a motion for resolution, and in December 2018, by personally asking the court personnel of Branch 23, RTC of Misamis Oriental. 29 Even with these judicious requests for updates on the part of Cao, Judge Rosales resolved the motion on April 15, 2019, or four (4) months after his last request, and only after the OCA directed him to comment on the complaint. 30
On this point, the Court's ruling in Mahinay v. Daomilas, Jr.31 is instructive:
Time and again, the Court has stressed the importance of reasonable promptness in relation to the administration of justice as justice delayed is justice denied. Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature. This is more so the case with trial judges who serve as the frontline officials of the judiciary expected to act all time with efficiency and probity. x x x
xxx xxx xxx
Respondent Judge Daomilas, Jr.'s cavalier treatment of the pending matters in his court betrays the kind of management he instituted in his courtroom. A judge must at all times remain in full control of the proceedings in his court and strictly observe the interdictions against unreasonable delay in the disposition of cases and pending incidents in order to avoid a miscarriage of justice. Court management is ultimately his responsibility. He should be reminded that that (sic) the moment he dons the judicial robe, he is bound to strictly adhere to and faithfully comply with his duties delineated under the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, particularly Section 5, Canon 6 x x x[.] 32 (Emphasis supplied)
As a consequence of Judge Rosales's failure to observe his duties, it is proper to hold him administratively liable for Undue Delay in Rendering an Order, which is classified as a less serious charge under Section 9 (1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, 33 punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month or more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. 34 aDSIHc
In the past, the Court considered the presence of mitigating circumstances in determining the appropriate penalty to be imposed on a respondent judge. 35 In this case, the OCA noted that this is the first infraction of Judge Rosales as a magistrate and recommended the penalty of reprimand. Furthermore, the OCA also recommended to sternly remind the Clerk of Court, Atty. Cabrera, to be more assiduous in the performance of her duties. Both of these recommendations are well-taken.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Vincent Filomeno B. Rosales, Presiding Judge, Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan De Oro, Misamis Oriental, GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering an Order. He is REPRIMANDED and STERNLYWARNED that a repetition of the same or a similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
Atty. Glerma C. Cabrera, the Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 23, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan De Oro, Misamis Oriental is also STERNLY REMINDED to be more circumspect and diligent in the performance of her duties.
SO ORDERED."
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
By:
MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 3-6.
2.Id. at 3.
3.Id. at 3-4.
4.Id. at 4, 7.
5.Id. at 4, 8.
6.Id. at 9-12.
7.Id. at 10-12.
8.Id. at 4, 14-17.
9.Id. at 18-21.
10.Id. at 21.
11.Id. at 22-26.
12.Id. at 5, 27-28.
13.Id. at 5.
14.Id. at 29.
15.Id. at 32-35.
16.Id. at 36.
17.Id. at 38-40.
18.Id. at 33-34.
19.Id. at 44-48.
20.Id. at 47.
21.Id.
22.Id. at 48.
23. 1987 CONSTITUTION, Article VIII, Sec. 15 (1).
24. A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, approved on April 27, 2004.
25. RE: GUIDELINES IN THE ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE, approved on July 1, 1987.
26. STRICT OBSERVANCE OF SESSION HOURS OF TRIAL COURTS AND EFFECTIVE MANAGEMENT OF CASES TO ENSURE THEIR SPEEDY DISPOSITION, approved on January 15, 1999.
27. IMPLEMENTATION OF SEC. 12, ART. XVIII OF THE 1987 CONSTITUTION, approved on January 28, 1988.
28. See Office of the Court Administrator v. Arreza, A.M. No. MTJ-18-1911 (formerly A.M. No. 17-08-98-MTC), April 16, 2018, 861 SCRA 209, 214.
29.Rollo, p. 47.
30.Id. at 29, 38-40.
31. A.M. No. RTJ-18-2527 (formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 16-4563-RTJ), June 18, 2018, 866 SCRA 339.
32.Id. at 353-355.
33. A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, PROPOSED AMENDMENT TO RULE 140 OF THE RULES OF COURT RE DISCIPLINE OF JUSTICES AND JUDGES, approved on September 11, 2001.
34.Id. at Sec. 11-B.
35. In Mahinay v. Daomilas, Jr., supra note 31, at 355, the Court considered the following as mitigating circumstances: physical illness, good faith, first offense, length of service, admission of the offense, or other analogous circumstances; see also Bangalan v. Turgano, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2317 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-3378-RTJ), July 25, 2012, 677 SCRA 451, 456; Angelia v. Grageda, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2220 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 08-3053-RTJ), February 7, 2011, 641 SCRA 554; Duque v. Garrido, A.M. No. RTJ-06-2027, February 27, 2009, 580 SCRA 321, 330.