Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. 05-3-159-RTC. June 16, 2021.]

RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 28, MANILA

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames:

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated June 16, 2021which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. 05-3-159-RTC (Re: Report on the Judicial Auditconducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 28, Manila.) — This concerns the Report 1 dated 08 March 2005 on the judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted by an audit team of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in Branch 28, Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila.

Factual Antecedents

The instant controversy stemmed from a Letter dated 21 December 2004 2 of Hon. Nina Antonio-Valenzuela (now Associate Justice of the Court of Appeals), shortly after she was appointed as Presiding Judge of Branch 28, RTC of Manila (Branch 28) on 05 November 2004. In the said Letter, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela requested a conduct of judicial audit of all cases filed before the said court because of numerous irregularities she discovered upon her assumption. Prior to her appointment therein, Branch 28 was presided by Judge Eudoxia T. Gualberto (Judge Gualberto) from 22 September 1994 to 14 January 2001, while Judge Teresa P. Soriaso of Branch 27, RTC of Manila served as pairing judge of Branch 28 from 2001, upon Judge Gualberto's retirement until November 2004. 3

On 05 January 2005, an audit team from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit and physical inventory of pending cases in Branch 28, which revealed that it has a total of one hundred ninety-eight (198) pending cases, consisting of one hundred seventeen (117) criminal cases and eighty-one (81) civil cases. Out of the 198 cases, the team found twenty-four (24) criminal cases and eighteen (18) civil cases submitted for decision, and twelve (12) criminal cases and twelve (12) civil cases with pending incidents submitted for resolution, which remained unresolved. 4

In a Report dated 08 March 2005, the OCA informed this Court of such findings, and recommended that: 1) Justice Antonio-Valenzuela be granted an extension of six (6) months from 28 March 2005 to decide or resolve the pending cases submitted for decision, and those which have pending incidents necessitating resolution; and that 2) she be ordered to submit copies of decisions and/or resolutions in such pending cases within ten (10) days from rendition. The OCA noted that Justice Antonio-Valenzuela had just assumed office, and acknowledged that she would need time to study the cases and draft her decisions/resolutions. Thus, it would be unfair to expect immediate disposition of sixty-six (66) cases. This Court adopted the OCA's recommendation in Our Resolution dated 13 April 2005. 5 ETHIDa

In March 2010, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela was appointed to the Court of Appeals (CA). At the time of her appointment, certificates of clearance did not reflect administrative matters pertaining to judicial audit and inventory. It was only in 2015 that these matters were indicated as a result of the docket inventory conducted by the Docket and Clearance Division of the OCA. Thus, the above-mentioned judicial audit conducted in 2005 only surfaced in the certification of the Docket and Clearance Division of the OCA in January 2019 when Justice Antonio-Valenzuela applied for the position of Associate Justice of this Court. 6

In a Letter dated 22 January 2019, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela submitted a Certification dated 21 January 2019, signed by William D. Orfila (Orfila), Sheriff IV, Branch 28, RTC, Manila on the status of the sixty-four (64) out of sixty-six (66) cases. 7

Finding that the Court, through the OCA, had not been furnished copies of the RTC's decisions and resolutions as directed in the 13 April 2005 Resolution, Assistant Court Administrator Maria Regina Adoracion Filomena M. Ignacio wrote a Letter dated 07 March 2019 to Orfila and Atty. Neil Antonio R. Estil (Atty. Estil), Branch Clerk of Court of Branch 28, reiterating the directive to submit such decisions and resolutions within ten (10) days from notice, with a request for information on whether the requests for extension of time to decide or resolve the said cases were submitted to the OCA. 8

In a Letter dated 28 March 2019, 9 Orfila and Atty. Estil submitted certified true copies of decisions, orders, resolutions and docket book of entries of the said cases. They alleged that despite diligent efforts, no motions for extension of time to resolve the said cases were located in the court's records. They also explained that most of the cases listed in the certification were included in the Records Disposal Program of the Supreme Court in 2011 and succeeding years. 10

OCA Memorandum

In a Memorandum 11 dated 17 October 2019, the OCA recommended that Justice Antonio-Valenzuela be directed to explain within fifteen (15) days from notice why she should not be held administratively liable for her failure to: 1) decide within a period of six (6) months from 28 March 2005, the sixty-three (63) out of sixty-six (66) cases submitted for decision or resolution but beyond the reglementary period to decide or resolve; and 2) furnish the Court, through the OCA, copies of the decisions and resolutions/orders in the said cases within ten (10) days from rendition, as directed by the Court in its Resolution dated 13 April 2005. 12

Based from the Letter dated 28 March 2019, and its attachments, 13 the OCA observed that out of sixty-six (66) cases, only copies of the decisions/resolutions for the forty (40) cases were submitted. Atty. Estil and Orfila merely submitted certified true copies of the docket book entries for the other cases. Specifically, the OCA noted that:

1. Certified true copies of decisions in eighteen (18) out of twenty-four (24) criminal cases were transmitted, and copies of the decisions in Criminal Case Nos. 97-160119, 99-169901-04 (four cases), and 99-177090 were still being located;

2. Certified true copies of resolutions in two (2) out of twelve (12) criminal cases were transmitted, and copies of the resolutions in Criminal Case Nos. 97-161311-17 (seven cases), 99-169660, and 00-185025-26 (two cases) were still being located;

3. Certified true copies of decisions in twelve (12) out of eighteen (18) civil cases were transmitted, and copies of the decisions in Civil Case Nos. 96-78421, 96-81213, 97-82443, 97-82215, 97-85648 and 00-99266 were still being located;

4. Certified true copies of resolutions in eight (8) out of twelve (12) civil cases were transmitted, and copies of the resolutions in Civil Case Nos. 94-71116, 95-72796, and SP-95-74817, signed by then Presiding Judge Jean Marie A. Bacorro-Villena, was attached to the transmittal. 14

The OCA recalled that per this Court's Resolution dated 13 April 2005, the six (6)-month period for Justice Antonio-Valenzuela to decide the sixty-six (66) cases was until 28 September 2005, unless there is a request for extension timely filed with the OCA. However, based from the submissions of Atty. Estil and Orfila, the OCA found that:

1. Three (3) cases were decided and/or resolved within the six (6)-month period;

2. Two (2) cases were decided after the appointment of Justice Antonio-Valenzuela to the CA in March 2010; and

3. Sixty-one (61) cases were decided and/or resolved from 24 October 2005 to 4 March 2010, or a period ranging from six (6) months and twenty-six (26) days to four (4) years and five (5) months. 15

The OCA also noted that there is no record of any request for further extension of time prior to 28 September 2005, nor did Atty. Estil and Orfila submitted proof of such motion for extension in their records. 16

Based from the foregoing, the OCA concluded that Justice Antonio-Valenzuela failed to comply with the directive of the Court to resolve the sixty-six (66) cases within the time allotted to her, and she also failed to submit copies of the decisions or resolutions in the said cases within ten (10) days from their rendition. The OCA noted that only copies of decisions or resolutions pertaining to forty (40) out of the sixty-six (66) cases were submitted to the OCA on 28 March 2019, or nine (9) years after the latest decision in the said cases was rendered. 17 cSEDTC

The OCA opined that Justice Antonio-Valenzuela's failure to comply with these directives constitute undue delay in rendering a decision or order, and a violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, both of which are classified as less serious charges under Section 9, Rule 140 of the 1997 Rules of Court, and punishable with either suspension from office without salary, and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than PhP10,000 but not exceeding Php20,000. 18

Justice Antonio-Valenzuela's comment

On the first charge of failure to promptly decide or resolve incidents on pending cases, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela pointed out that the OCA's findings were inaccurate and erroneous. She alleged that some of the cases she was directed to decide within the six (6)-month period were not actually submitted for decision. In Civil Case No. 0098667 titled, "Yuviengco v. Umipig," for example, she issued an order dated 24 May 2005 allowing the plaintiff to present evidence ex-parte. She also cited Civil Case No. 94-71856 entitled, "City ofManila v. State Investment House," where she recalled issuing an Order dated 20 November 2009, requiring the defendant to file an answer to the complaint for expropriation. 19

She also argued that she cannot be expected to decide most of the cases listed by the OCA because the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) of most of those cases were missing or incomplete. She explained that the court stenographers assigned to these cases, Avelina Vargas (Vargas) and Tyrone Bilbes (Bilbes), were no longer connected to the court at the time of the OCA's directive to complete and update TSN's of the pending cases. Although she exerted efforts to contact them, the two (2) manifested their inability to complete or submit the TSNs assigned to them. In support of her explanation, she submitted the Joint Affidavit 20 of other court stenographers of Branch 28, RTC, Manila, namely: Shiela Socito-Ong (Ong), Cherie Lou P. Caco (Caco) and Phinky Bognot-Toboro (Toboro). Due to the missing TSNs, she explained that she had to order the reopening of around twenty (20) cases for the reception of testimonial evidence. 21

As to the cases that were allegedly decided after she was appointed to the CA, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela argued that they should not be considered a basis for her supposed administrative liability because the OCA failed to specify whether these cases were submitted for decision before her appointment to the CA. She claimed that it was unfair for the OCA to imply that she merely delayed resolving these cases absent a proof that presentation of evidence for both prosecution and defense was completed prior to her promotion to the appellate court.

Contrary to the OCA's findings, she claimed that she filed a request in a Letter dated 22 September 2005, asking for extension of the six-month period to decide the 24 criminal cases and 18 civil cases cited by the OCA. 22 She claimed that the First Division of this Court granted her request for extension in a Resolution dated 5 December 2005. 23

Meanwhile, as to the pending incidents in twelve (12) criminal and twelve (12) civil cases she allegedly failed to resolve, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela countered that the OCA failed to specify a period within which to resolve the same. Moreover, she narrated her actions thereon, viz.: 24

 

CRIMINAL CASES

Docket number	Title
97-1611311 to 17 (7 cases)	People v. Fe Cruz Aquino
99-169660	People v. Anastacio Tan
99-176272	People v. Ramil Rivera
00-185025-26	People v. Elvira Dulay
00-184320	People v. Alfonso Dacollo

CIVIL CASES

Docket number	Title
92-62615	Antonino v. Asuncion
94-71116	Travelers v. Chua
94-69239	Standard Insurance v. Manican
95-72796	Legarda v. Bautista
95-74851	In the matter of Estate of Hortaleza
97-83728	BPI v. Bugayong
99-95998	Mercado v. Mercado
00-96622	In the matter of application of Suspension of Payments of Jimmy Angco
00-98417	Tougher Marketing v. Metrobank
00-98330	Cariaso v. Pechaten Corporation
00-99205	LRTA v. Spouses Beltran
00-99054	In Re: Petition for Letters of Administration, Fernando Isip

 

As to the charge of failing to furnish this Court with copies of the Decisions, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela pointed out that the last page of the decisions she penned showed that the OCA was actually furnished copies thereof. Since there was proof of OCA's receipt of the copies of the decisions and resolutions, she claimed that the OCA may have failed to locate the same in its records. She argued that the OCA should not shift the burden of proving its receipt considering that most of the cases cited in its memorandum are disposed of, or cannot be located. Thus, she prayed that the instant case be deemed close and terminated. 25 SDAaTC

Ruling of the Court

Justice Antonio-Valenzuela's explanation is well-taken.

Our substantive laws and ethical rules encourage efficient disposal of court cases. Article VIII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution expressly prescribes that all cases or matters must be decided or resolved by the lower courts within three (3) months from date of submission. Similarly, Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. 26 Part of the duties of both retiring and newly-appointed members of the judiciary is to conduct case inventories in order to lessen, if not avoid docket clogging in their respective courts. 27 In order to implement this policy, this Court, in numerous instances, has not hesitated in holding erring magistrates administratively liable for delaying the disposition or resolution of cases.

Nonetheless, this Court is not oblivious to operational difficulties which may justify the failure of judges or Justices to promptly act on their cases. Indeed, this Court has considered the time frames in Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution directory. 28 It also allowed judges leeway to resolve cases as long as they file requests for extension with this Court.

In this case, the Court finds that the circumstances surrounding the appointment of Justice Antonio-Valenzuela in Branch 28 justify her failure to promptly decide all the cases enumerated in the OCA Report dated 08 March 2005. At the outset, the judicial audit was conducted upon the initiative of Justice Antonio-Valenzuela herself based on the various irregularities she found upon her assumption as presiding judge, viz.:

1. Majority of the General Docket Books issued to the Court is totally empty. The few books that have entries contain only the case titles and case numbers, with no entries in regard "the date of each paper filed or issued, of each order or judgment entered and every step taken in the case, so that by reference to a single page, the history of the case may be seen" as required by the Manual of Clerks of Court.

2. The Court has no Judgment Book, Book of Entries of Judgment, Execution Book and Court Journal.

3. There is no record book of writs of execution, writs of attachment, writs of replevin, writs of injunction and other processes executed by the Sheriff.

4. There is no record book of cases calendared for hearing.

5. There are no indexes attached to the records.

6. Pieces of documentary evidence have not been properly marked nor placed in separate exhibit folders.

7. There is no record of object evidence offered and in the custody of the Court. In fact, there are several firearms in the Court's vault that have not been labeled making it impossible to determine the case(s) to which they pertain.

8. Not all returns of notices and orders previously issued by the Court are attached to the records.

9. The records pertaining to the property assigned to the Court are incomplete.

10. It would appear that some case records are missing. However, I am not in a position to identify these records due to the condition of the Court's General Docket.

11. There is no list or record of accused who are detained in connection with cases pending before the Court. 29

Verily, Branch 28 was a total disarray when Justice Antonio-Valenzuela assumed her post. To make matters worse, not long after, the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Miguelito Pama (Atty. Pama) resigned. 30 Thus, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela had to simultaneously perform the duties of the clerk of court and preside over the cases assigned to her. She had to personally conduct initial inventory of the court records and accomplish court docket books. 31

In her Letter 22 September 2005, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela reiterated the problems she encountered, when she requested for extension of time to decide the pending cases identified by the OCA, viz.:

xxx xxx xxx

Although I have single handedly complied with numbers 2, 3, 4 of the Memorandum, I have been unable to comply with number 1 thereof due to the fact that aside from complying with Numbers 2, 3, 4 of the Memorandum, I have done the following: put in place a records-keeping system (which, before my appointment, did not exist); conducted actual inventory of all the object evidence in the Court's custody (Report submitted to your office on 4 July 2005); conducted actual inventory of all Records/Expedientes in the Court's custody (still in progress) to determine status of each case, and to identify which Records may be disposed of, and which need to be acted upon and retained. Aside from these, I have been conducting daily hearings for the cases pending in this Court, resolving incidents related thereto, and deciding cases submitted before me.

As of this date, this Court is still without Branch Clerk of Court. I found it prudent not to appoint an OIC Branch Clerk of Court due to the circumstances in the Court upon appointment. Thus, I have been performing the functions of both Judge and Branch Clerk of Court since the resignation of Atty. Miguelito Pama in February 2005. 32

This Court considers numerous duties performed by Justice Antonio-Valenzuela when she assumed office as heavy case load. In Santos v. Lorenzo, 33 this Court considered the simultaneous designation of therein respondent as presiding judge of a Family Court a justified explanation for the failure to promptly decide cases. Similarly, in Lubaton v. Lazaro, 34 this Court considered the high docket of the trial court as a valid excuse for the delay in the resolution of cases. In that case, this Court acknowledged that it would be unkind and inconsiderate to disregard respondent Judge's limitations and exact a rigid and literal compliance with the reglementary periods. acEHCD

In addition, this Court cannot close its eyes to the fact that most of the cases cited by the OCA have missing records, or TSNs. Evidently, Justice Antonio-Valenzuela cannot be expected to decide these inherited cases without such documents. No ill-will or bad faith can be imputed to her considering that her failure to act on these cases stem from the lack of information, and evidence thereon. This Court cannot require her to do the impossible.

On the contrary, given the challenging circumstances of her appointment as presiding judge, this Court finds that Justice Antonio-Valenzuela acted judiciously when she exerted efforts to contact the assigned stenographers, 35 and solicited the help of the parties in verifying the existing court records of their cases. Her actions contradict the OCA's insinuations that she deliberately delayed the resolution of the pending cases before her court.

As to Justice Antonio-Valenzuela's alleged failure to comply with this Court's directives, it suffices to state that there is nothing in the records which would indicate her deliberate disrespect or defiance to this Court's order directing submission of the copies of the decisions.

In sum, the Court finds that the basis for the administrative charges against respondent Justice Antonio-Valenzuela were not amply established. As this Court stated in Santos v. Lorenzo, 36 "[L]et the guilty ones be severely brought to book, but let those who are innocent enjoy merited exoneration to which they are entitled as a matter of simple justice."

WHEREFORE, the instant case is DISMISSED. Justice Nina Antonio-Valenzuela is hereby EXONERATED of the charges of undue delay in rendering a decision or order, and violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars, for lack of merit.

Meanwhile, former Presiding Judge Eudoxia Gualberto,Judge Teresa Soriaso, and former Branch Clerk of Court Atty.Miguelito Pama, are hereby required to SHOW CAUSE why they should not be administratively held liable for the disorderly, unsystematic and ineffective management of court records and the delay in the disposition of various cases pending before Branch 28, Regional Trial Court, Manila, during their tenure.

Let this be DOCKETED as another administrative matter.

The letter dated February 16, 2021 of Deputy Clerk of Court at Large James D.V. Navarrete, transmitting to Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela, Court of Appeals, certified true copy of the documents relative to the instant administrative matter in compliance with her letter-request dated October 26, 2020, is NOTED; the manifestation dated February 22, 2021 of Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela is NOTED, and the motion reiterating her prayer that the fifteen (15)-day period within which she should explain why she should not be administratively charged under this administrative matter be reckoned from the date she received the requested certified true copies of documents from the Office of the Court Administrator or from February 17, 2021, is GRANTED; and the compliance of Associate Justice Nina G. Antonio-Valenzuela with the Resolution dated September 2, 2020/explanation (with enclosures), submitting that there is no cause to charge her administratively for reasons stated therein, and praying that A.M. No. 05-3-159-RTC and A.M. No. 05-10-667-RTC be deemed closed and terminated, is NOTED.

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. 44-49.

2.Id. at 67; Annex B of Compliance.

3.Id. at 334.

4.Id. at 334-335.

5.Id. at 335.

6.Id. at 336.

7.Id.

8.Id. at 336-337.

9.Id. at 177; Annex V of the Compliance.

10.Id. at 337.

11.Id. at 116; Annex J of the Compliance.

12.Id.

13.Id. at 178; Annex W of the Compliance.

14.Id. at 337-338.

15.Id. at 338-339.

16.Id. at 339.

17.Id.

18.Id.

19.Id. at 388-390.

20.Id. at 201-205; Annex BB of the Compliance.

21.Id. at 390-392.

22.Id. at 120; Annex L of the Compliance.

23.Id.

24.Id. at 395-396.

25.Id. at 400-401.

26.Cayabyab v. Pangilinan, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-20-2584, 28 July 2020 [Per J. Caguioa].

27.See Office of the Court Administrator v. Del Castillo, 601 Phil. 325 (2009), A.M. No. MTJ-08-1708, 25 March 2009, [Per J. Brion].

28.Re: Elvira N. Enalbes, A.M. No. 18-11-09-SC, 22 January 2019 [Per J. Leonen].

29.Rollo, pp. 44-48.

30.Id. at 68-71; Annex C of Compliance.

31.Id. at 78-84; Annex E of Compliance.

32.Id. at 117-119; Annex K of Compliance.

33. 436 Phil. 209 (2002), A.M. No. RTJ-02-1702, August 20, 2002 [Per J. Mendoza].

34. 717 Phil. 1 (2013), A.M. No. RTJ-12-2320, 2 September 2013, [Per J. Bersamin].

35. Annexes I and J of the Compliance.

36. 436 Phil. 209-219 (2002), A.M. No. RTJ-02-1702, 20 August 2002, [Per J. Mendoza].