THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-19-2551. February 18, 2019.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4787-RTJ]
SPOUSES RICARDO SAPALICIO AND CARMELITA SAPALICIO, complainants,vs. HONORABLE JUDGE KEVIN NARCE B. VIVERO, BRANCH 71, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANTIPOLO CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution dated February 18, 2019, which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. RTJ-19-2551 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4787-RTJ] (Spouses Ricardo Sapalicio and Carmelita Sapalicio vs. Honorable Judge Kevin Narce B. Vivero, Branch 71, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City). — The Court NOTES the Report dated October 30, 2018 of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on the instant administrative complaint.
In a Verified Complaint 1 dated January 15, 2018, Spouses Ricardo and Carmelita Sapalicio (complainants) charged former Judge Kevin Narce B. Vivero (respondent) of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Antipolo City, Branch 71, now Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan, with undue delay in rendering a decision. The complainants are plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 10-8998 for annulment of deed of mortgage. They alleged that in August 2016, the parties have already filed their respective memoranda in the said civil case. However, it was only on December 15, 2017 that the respondent decided the case. The complainants pointed out that it took the court more than one year and three months to decide the same. In support of their allegations, the complainants attached copies of the motions for early resolution of the case to show the length of time the court took to resolve their case. 2
In his Amended Comment dated April 10, 2018, the respondent took exception to the allegation that he exhibited gross inefficiency in handling Civil Case No. 10-8998. He refuted the complainants' allegation that both parties have filed their respective memoranda in August 2016. 3 According to the respondent, it was only the complainants who filed their memorandum. Despite the time given by the court, the defendant did not file his memorandum. It was only after giving the defendant the opportunity to file his memorandum that the court issued an Order dated December 1, 2016, submitting the case for decision. Furthermore, the respondent explained that from January to March 2017, the courtroom, including the Hall of Justice of Antipolo City, was undergoing a major renovation. The office was virtually in chaos resulting to the cancellation of hearings and making the monitoring of the cases difficult, if not totally impossible. 4
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the respondent indeed failed to resolve the subject civil case within the reglementary period provided by the rules. It noted that the case was decided only on December 15, 2017, when it should have been decided on March 1, 2017. Likewise, this is not the first time that the respondent has been found liable for delays. He was found administratively liable for delay in rendering an order in the consolidated cases of Norman Ludas, et al. vs. Judge Vivero (A.M. No. RTJ-13-2347) and Josephine Lacida, et al. vs. Judge Vivero (A.M. No. RTJ-13-2348), where he was meted a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (Php5,000.00). However, the OCA believes that the instant case should be resolved with liberal approach. It considered the circumstances obtaining in the Hall of Justice, in general, and in the courtroom of the respondent, in particular, which contributed to the delay in the resolution of the case. 5
Recommendation of the OCA
It is respectfully recommended for the consideration of the Honorable Court that the instant administrative complaint against Judge Kevin Narce B. Vivero, Branch 71, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, Rizal (now Sandiganbayan Justice), be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter and that respondent Judge Vivero be found GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision, for which he should be REPRIMANDED, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely. 6 (Emphasis in the original)
Ruling of the Court
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
The records disclose that the respondent utterly failed to decide the case submitted for decision within the reglementary period. In Re: Judicial Audit of the RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City, 7 the Court cited Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which underscores the need to speedily resolve cases, thus:
The Supreme Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases.
The office of the judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the Constitution and the law in the discharge of official duties. Section 15 (1), 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, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." Judges must 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. Time and again, we have stressed the need to strictly observe this duty so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts. 8 (Citations omitted)
However, it has also been consistently stressed that whenever circumstances arise that render judges incapable of seasonably acting on and deciding a case, all that a judge should do is to request the Court, with justification, for an extension of time to resolve or decide the pending matter. The Court would almost always grant said request, aware as it is of the caseload of judges and mindful of the numerous difficulties which a judge may encounter in the timely disposition of cases. 9
In this case, there was an ongoing renovation of the respondent's courtroom, as well as the Hall of Justice of Antipolo City, from January to March 2017. The Court takes note that this has contributed to the delay in the resolution of the complainants' case. All told, the Court adopts the OCA's recommendation that the respondent should be reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.
WHEREFORE, the instant administrative complaint against respondent Judge Kevin Narce B. Vivero, Regional Trial Court of Antipolo City, Branch 71, is hereby RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter. Finding that respondent Judge Kevin Narce B. Vivero is GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision, he is hereby REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED."
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-4.
2.Id. at 16-25.
3.Id. at 16, 22.
4.Id. at 44-48.
5.Id. at 57-58.
6.Id. at 58.
7. 517 Phil. 507 (2006).
8.Id. at 516-517.
9.Request of Peter Ristig for Assistance Regarding the Delay in the Proceedings of Criminal Case No. 95227-R, 487 Phil. 50, 61-62 (2004).