In Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 55, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental

SECOND DIVISION

[A.M. No. 05-4-213-RTC. March 6, 2006.]

Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental

R E S O L U T I O N

GARCIA, J p:

In anticipation of the compulsory retirement on November 1, 2004 of Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., then the presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 55, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, a judicial audit and physical inventory of the cases in said court were made on August 2-3, 2004 by an audit team formed by the Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Supreme Court. 1 As of the date of audit, the team found that RTC, Branch 55, has a total caseload of 269 cases, of which 190 are criminal and 79 civil. The status of the cases, their nature and number are as follows:

	CASE STATUS	CRIMINAL	CIVIL	TOTAL
		CASES	CASES
I.	Case Submitted for Decision	2	5	7
II.	Case with Pending Motion/
	Incidents for Resolution	1	9	10
III.	For Issuance of Warrant of
	Arrest/Summons	40	3	43
IV.	For Arraignment	8	—	8
V.	For Pre-Trial Conference	13	8	21
VI.	On Trial	117	19	136
VII.	Suspended Proceedings	3	3	6
VIII.	For Compliance	3	15	18
IX.	Cases with No further Action	1	15	16
X.	Archived	2	—	2
XI.	Cases where PJ Inhibited himself
	from hearing the case	—	2	2
	TOTAL	190	79	269

The team's audit Report 2 disclosed a more thorough and detailed inventory of Judge Aguirre's caseload, as follows:

I.Cases Submitted For Decision:

CASE	TITLE	DATE	DUE DATE	REMARKS
NO.		SUBMITTED	OF
		FOR	SUBMISSION
		DECISION
Criminal Case
1230	F. Madalag	7-20-03	10-18-03	Beyond
1152	V. Arapoc	12-04-03	3-03-04	Beyond
	N. Barcenilla
Civil Case
894	Tabitha Liongzon	7-19-04	10-18-04	Within
	vs. Sps. Gayoso
899	H. Genosa vs. G.	4-30-04	7-29-04	Beyond
	Titong
888	A. Arroyo vs. J.	06-07-04	9-05-04	Within
	Marie Javellana
900	A. Genosa vs. R.	04-30-04	7-29-04	Beyond
	Sevilla			(Appealed
				Case)
877	A. Garanganao vs.	02-05-04	5-05-04	Beyond
	Sps. Arac			(Appealed
				Case)

II.Cases With Pending Motions/Incidents For Resolution:

CASE	TITLE	DATE	PENDING	REMARKS
NO.		SUBMITTED	MOTION
		FOR
		RESOLUTION
Criminal Case
1634	A. Secapuri	07-07-04	Motion for	Within
			Preliminary
			Investigation
Civil Case
921	Linda Sailo, et al.	07-23-04	Motion to	Within
	vs. Ma. Socorro		Dismiss
	Tuvilla
902	Concepcion	07-23-04	Omnibus	Within
	Ledesma vs. Sps.		Motion-entry of
	Lima		appearance
SP 51	Intestate of R.	08-02-04	Motion to	Within
SP 105	Angodong, Jr. vs.		approve sale of
	Ana Matibonez		intestate
			property
866	C. Mapagay vs. A	03-29-04	Motion for	Beyond
	Secoral		reconsideration
			of the Decision
			rendered on
			12-17-03
886	Sps. Chiong vs.	05-07-04	Motion to	Within
	Sps. Lagtapon		declare
			defendant in
			default
			Motion to
			Expunge
			Answer from
			the Record and
			suspend the
			running of the
			period to reply
			and to answer
			counterclaim
847	E. Aragon vs. A	01-30-04	Motion for	Beyond
	Ordaniel		reconsideration
			of the Decision
852	P. Yulo vs. R.	03-25-04	Motion for	Beyond
	Cainap		reconsideration
			of the Decision
SP 242	Intestate Estate of	11-28-03	Motion for	Beyond
	the Late Miguel		authority to sell
	Gatuslao and
	Espectacion
	Gatuslao

III.Cases With No Further Action For A Considerable Length Of Time

	CASE	TITLE	DATE OF	ACTION TAKEN
	NO.		LAST
			COURT
			ACTION
Criminal Case
	1556	F. Gamosa	10-08-03	For reinvestigation
				(Accused is a detention
				prisoner)
Civil Case
	873	Feliza Arroz vs. Zaldy	11-10-03	Government prosecutor to
		Arros		conduct investigation and
				submit report to determine
				that no collusion exists
				between parties
	830	Mary Ann Medel vs.	03-04-03	AFP directed to release
		Leonardo Medel		monthly pension to
				respondent
	917	Michael Tumado vs.	05-19-04	Deputized government
		Daryle Tumado		prosecutor directed to
				conduct an investigation
				and submit a report to
				determine that no
				collusion exist between
				the parties
	883	M. Gatuslao vs.	2-10-04	Parties to make peace
		Paul Ramos		with one another and
				directed to formally
				submit their withdrawal
				of complaint and
				counterclaim,
				respectively
	SP 294	In the Matter of Probate	07-30-03	Petitioner manifested that
		of Will of Delfina		probate of will has
		Tabalac Tortosa and		already been allowed in its
		Simplicio Tortosa		Order of 2-28-02- Revival
				of case sufficient
	SP 323	Petition for	07-08-03	Judicial guardian directed to
		Guardianship of Minor		account for the proceeds of
		Kirk Alvin Genosa		the sale and to submit report
				within 30 days. No
				compliance as of audit
	SP 243	Petition for Declare	07-11-00	Administrator to render an
		Absence and		accounting as to the proper
		Administration of		disposal of proceeds of 1/2
		Properties of Letecia		portion of subject property.
		Gatuslao		No compliance as of audit
	SP 235	Intestate Estate of	12-04-00	Letters of Administration
		Remegio Limsiaco		issued. Appointed Special
				Administrator took his oath
				of office
	SP 125	Intestate Estate of the	12-19-02	Motion for authority to
		Late Milagros Ramos		withdraw deposit and sell
				Land Bank Bonds granted.
				Administrator to submit
				report as to disposition.
				No compliance
	SP 88	Intestate Estate of the	04-04-03	Motion for authority to have
		Late Amalia Nava		lots surveyed by movant
				granted. Movant to engage
				the services of a Geodetic
				Engineer
	SP 90	Intestate Estate of the	03-19-04	Motion for authority to
		Late Abraham		secure loan and approval
		Mangente		of loan contract granted.
				Administratrix to submit
				report as to proper disposal.
				No compliance as of audit
	SP 126	In the Matter of the	12-19-02	Motion for authority to
		Guardianship of		withdraw deposit and sell
		Incompetent Andrea		Land Bank Bonds granted.
		Ramos		Judicial Guardian directed
				to submit a report as to the
				proper disposition of the
				withdrawn deposit and
				proceeds from the sale. No
				compliance as of audit
	SP 108	Intestate Estate of the	03-13-01	Motion to sell properties
		Late Jose Montero		of estate granted. Special
				Administratrix directed to
				submit pertinent documents
				for approval and report on
				the proper disposition of
				the proceeds
	SP 8	Lourdes Mesa	05-23-00	Motion for authority to
				sell property of estate
				granted. Administratrix
				directed to submit a report
				on its proper disposal
				within 30 days. No
				compliance as of audit
	794	Intestate Estate of the	06-17-02	Petitioner given 5 days to
		Deceased Sps. Dioscoro		comment on the motion for
		and Emperatriz Rubin		inhibition. No compliance
		vs. Heirs of Feliciano
		Rubin

On receipt of the same Report, Senior Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepaño issued a Memorandum 3 dated September 2, 2004 directing Judge Aguirre, Jr. to:

a)EXPLAIN the causes of the delay in deciding the following cases within the mandatory period to decide, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 1230, 1152 and Civil Case Nos. 899, 900 and 877; DECIDE the same within 30 days from notice and submit to the Court copies of the decisions.

b)INFORM the Court whether the following cases submitted for decision but still within the mandatory period to decide at the time of audit, have already been decided, namely: Civil Case Nos. 894 and 888 and submit copies of the decision.

c)EXPLAIN the causes of the delay in resolving within the mandatory period the pending incidents/motions in the following cases, to wit: Civil Case Nos. 847, 852 and SP 242; RESOLVE the same within 15 days from notice and submit copies of the Orders.

d)INFORM the Court whether the pending motions/incidents in following cases but still within the mandatory period to resolve, have already been resolved, namely: Criminal Case No. 1634 and Civil Case Nos. 921, 902, 886, SP 51 and SP 105 and submit to the Court copies of the Orders.

e)EXPLAIN why the following cases have not been acted upon for a considerable length of time, to wit: Criminal Case No. 1556 and Civil Case Nos. 873, 830, 917, 883, 794, SP 294, SP 323, SP 243, SP 235, SP 125, SP 88, SP 90, SP 126, SP 108 and SP 8; IMMEDIATELY act on the said cases and submit to the Court copies of the action taken thereon.

f)STRICTLY COMPLY with OCA Circular No. 12-2002 as amended by OCA Circular No. 28-2003 by submitting to the Court the Minutes of the Judicial Service Team Meeting.

In compliance with the above, Judge Aguirre submitted his explanations, one dated September 29, 2004 4 and the other dated October 29, 2004. 5 Admittedly, out of the eight (8) cases not yet decided beyond the period prescribed by law, only seven (7) cases were resolved. Respondent judge blamed the parties' non-submission of memoranda for his failure to decide the said cases within the 90-day period therefor. He explained that Civil Case No. 899 was not decided on time, because of plaintiff-appellee's manifestation therein that he will file a memorandum which was not yet filed at the time of audit. As to paragraphs (b) and (d), he immediately took appropriate action and decided the six (6) cases listed in the said paragraphs. As directed, he also submitted the copies of the minutes of the meeting of the judicial service team for the months of January to August 2004 and the Court Performance Inventories and Court Action Plans for the months of March and June 2004. 6 Judge Aguirre also gave the following explanations and/or actions taken in the following cases:

Case Number	Explanation/Action Taken
Criminal Case
1556	Case still under reinvestigation by the City Prosecutor
Civil Case
873	Archived per order dated August 31, 2004
830	This is a case for support, hence a continuing proceeding
917	Summons unserved. Petitioner manifested that he will file a motion for
	issuance of alias summons.   ADCETI
883	Dismissed per order dated August 16, 2004
794	Held in abeyance pending receipt of the Court of Appeals' resolution on
	the respondent's petition for certiorari and of the Office of the Court
	Administrator's order on the order of inhibition of the undersigned in SP
	No. 28 involving the same parties. Contempt case shall be heard by the
	Hon. Henry Arles, APJ appointed by the Supreme Court to hear SP No.
	28.
SP No. 294	Petition for probate of wills was allowed per certification of allowance of
	wills dated Feb. 28, 2002. Revival of case is sufficient since the 2
	testators are still alive. Probate of wills proceedings is continuing.
	Archived on October 5, 2004.
SP No. 323	Petition for appointment as guardian was granted per order dated June 4,
	2003. Guardianship proceeding is continuing. Archived on October 5,
	2004.
SP No. 243	Petition for declaration of absence of Leticia Gatuslao and appointment
	of regular administrator was granted per order dated April 10, 2004.
	Administrator of property proceeding is continuing. Archived on
	October 5, 2004.
SP No. 235	Petition for appointment as administratrix was granted on September 21,
	2000. Intestate proceeding is continuing. Archived on October 5, 2004.
SP No. 125	Petition for appointment as administrator was granted on October 4,
	1996. Intestate proceedings is continuing. Archived on October 5, 2004.
SP No. 88	Petition for appointment as special administrator was granted on January
	3, 1997. Intestate proceeding is continuing. Archived on October 14,
	2004
SP No. 90	Petition for appointment as administrator was granted on October 19,
	1993. Intestate proceeding is continuing. Archived on October 4, 2004.
SP No. 126	Petition for appointment as guardian was granted on October 4, 1996.
	Guardianship proceeding is continuing. Archived on October 6, 2004.
SP No. 108	Petition for appointment as special administratrix was granted on July
	18, 1996. Intestate proceeding is continuing. Archived on October 6,
	2004.
SP No. 8	Petition for appointment as special administratrix was granted on January

Judge Aguirre, Jr. likewise justified his failure to decide and/or resolve/take further action on some cases on account of his court's heavy caseload it being a heinous crimes court and that some cases involve difficult and intricate issues which need further study before rendering his decisions thereon.

Finding Judge Aguirre's explanations unsatisfactory, the OCA on April 4, 2005, recommended to the Court that the audit team's report be docketed as a regular administrative matter against Judge Aguirre, Jr. for gross inefficiency and that he be fined in the amount of P20,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

After a careful evaluation of the records, the Court agrees with the finding of the OCA that Judge Aguirre, Jr.'s explanations for his failure to act promptly and decide the eight (8) cases 7 within the time prescribed by law are insufficient.

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

SEC. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

To implement the foregoing constitutional mandate, Rule 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct respectively provide:

Rule 1.02. — A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.

Rule 3.05. — A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

Respondent judge cannot justify his delay in deciding the aforementioned eight (8) 8 cases on the excuse that he was still awaiting the parties' memoranda. The Court issued Administrative Circular No. 28 on July 3, 1989 to make clear to all judges that a case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the parties' evidence at the termination of the trial. However, should the court require or allow the submission of memoranda, the case is considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period therefor, whichever is earlier, and while a court may grant an extension of time to file memorandum, it cannot extend the ninety-day (90) period within which to decide. In Salvador vs. Salamanca, 9 this Court held:

...judges should decide cases even if the parties failed to submit memoranda within the given periods. Non-submission of memoranda is not a justification for failure to decide cases. The filing of memoranda is not a part of the trial nor is the memorandum itself an essential, much less indispensable pleading before a case may be submitted for decision. As it is merely intended to aid the court in the rendition of the decision in accordance with law and evidence — which even in its absence the court can do on the basis of the judge's personal notes and the records of the case — non-submission thereof has invariably been considered a waiver of the privilege. acEHSI

Judge Aguirre, Jr. would rely on his court's heavy caseload it being a heinous crimes court to justify the delay in the disposition of cases in his sala. The Court reiterates that judges, when burdened with heavy caseloads which prevent them from disposing their cases within the reglementary period, may ask for additional time. Here, Judge Aguirre never asked for additional time. The presumption then is that he is not burdened with caseloads.

The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction on them. 10

The Court adopts the recommendation of the OCA to impose a fine of P20,000.00 on the respondent judge.

Under Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated 11 September 2001, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is categorized as less serious charge with the following sanctions: (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

The Court notes that this is not the first time that an administrative case was filed against Judge Aguirre, Jr. for delay in deciding a case. In Administrative Case No. RTJ-01-1624 (Request For Assistance Relative To Special Proceedings No. 28 Pending At Regional Trial Court Of Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, Branch 55, Presided By Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr.) promulgated on March 26, 2001, Judge Aguirre, Jr. was fined by the Court in the amount of P2,000.00 for failure to timely resolve two pending incidents in Special Proceedings No. 28 then pending before his court.

WHEREFORE, Judge Jose Y. AGUIRRE, JR. is found administratively liable for GROSS INEFFICIENCY for delay in the disposition of cases and is hereby FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00),which amount shall be deducted from whatever retirement benefits due him. Let copy of this resolution be FORWARDED to the Office of the Court Administrator so that the remaining benefits due the respondent judge are promptly released, unless there exists another lawful cause for withholding the same.

SO ORDERED.

Puno, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona and Azcuna, JJ., concur.

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo,pp. 8-14.

2.Rollo,pp. 8-12.

3.Rollo,pp. 15-16.

4.Rollo,pp. 68-72.

5.Rollo,pp. 17-18.

6.Rollo,pp. 121-135.

7.1.Criminal Case No. 1230.

2.Criminal Case No. 1152.

3.Civil Case No. 899.

4.Civil Case No. 900.

5.Civil Case No. 877.

6.Civil Case No. 847.

7.Civil Case No. 852.

8.SP 242.

8.See Footnote #7.

9.144 SCRA 276 (1986),cited in Guillas vs. Muñez,363 SCRA 701 (2001).

10.Monfort Hermanos Agricultural Development Corporation vs. Judge Rolando V. Ramirez,355 SCRA 477 (2001).