FIRST DIVISION

A.M. No. 96-5-169-RTC            May 9, 2003

RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURTS OF KIDAPAWAN, BRANCHES 17 and 23, KABACAN, BRANCHES 16 and 17, NORTH COTABATO

RESOLUTION

YNARES-SANTIAGO, J.:

For resolution before us are the following: (1) A.M. No. 96-5-169-RTC entitled "Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTCs of Kidapawan and Kabacan, North Cotabato;" and (2) "Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 17, Kidapawan City."

Pursuant to the report of the Judicial Audit Team of the Office of the Court Administrator, the Court issued a Resolution: (1) requiring Judge Rodolfo Serrano of the Regional Trial Court of Kidapawan City, Branch 17 to explain the delay in the disposition of the Criminal Cases Nos. 1644 and 2179 and Civil Case No. 0271; (2) requiring Branch Clerk of Court Gary V. Vergara of the same court to comment on the withholding of the true status of Special Civil Action No. SCA-091; and (3) directing the Office of the Court Administrator to send a Judicial Audit Team to conduct another audit and physical inventory of cases at the RTC, Branch 17, Kidapawan City.

In his letter-compliance, Judge Serrano explained that since his branch was designated as a special court for heinous crimes pursuant to Administrative Order No. 104-96, it was physically impossible for him to promptly dispose of Criminal Cases Nos. 1644 and 2179 and Civil Case No. 0271, which were, moreover, inherited from his predecessors.

Branch Clerk Vergara also filed a letter-compliance, informing the Court that he did not withhold the true status of Special Civil Action No. SCA-091. In fact, in his letter dated October 30, 2000, he attached a copy of the decision of the said case. He further averred that if ever the said case was reported as decided on a date earlier than its actual rendition, it was simply due to inadvertence for which he sincerely apologized.

The Office of the Court Administrator found respondent Judge guilty of delay in the disposition of Criminal Cases Nos. 496, 726 and 1890 and Civil Cases Nos. 0246 and 0824, and recommended that he be fined the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00), with a stern warning that a commission of the same or similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely. On the other hand, the OCA recommended that respondent Branch Clerk be absolved from any wrongdoing.

We agree with the OCA that the explanation of respondent Branch Clerk of Court is well-taken. It appears that he had no intention to withhold or mislead the Court as to the actual date of the judgment in Special Civil Action No. SCA-091. In the absence of malice or bad faith, no administrative sanctions may be imposed on him.

We likewise agree with the OCA that respondent was guilty of gross inefficiency for delay in the disposition of cases.

Rule 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct 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.

The unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate.1 Justices and judges alike, being paradigms of justice, have been exhorted time and again to dispose of the court’s business promptly and to decide cases within the required periods.2 Delay not only results in undermining the people’s faith in the judiciary from whom the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated and expected; it also reinforces in the mind of the litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.3

Inability to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency4 warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on them.5 A judge should, at all times, remain in full control of the proceedings in his branch and should adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements – more importantly, he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases.6 If he feels that he could not decide the case within the reglementary period, he should ask for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the case.7

In the case at bar, there is no showing that respondent Judge requested for an extension of time to decide the cases. In fact, it was only after receipt of this Court’s June 25, 1995 Resolution that he asked for an extension. The said request was belatedly filed because more than a year had passed from the time the ninety-day reglementary period elapsed.

While we agree with the findings of the OCA, we find the recommended fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) to be an inadequate sanction considering the enormity of respondent Judge’s misfeasance. His infraction is aggravated by his lack of candor in his disclosure of the actual status of the cases assigned to his branch, and also by the fact that this case is not respondent’s first offense. In Atty. Daniel O. Osumo v. Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano,8 respondent Judge was sanctioned and warned that any subsequent transgression he commits would be dealt with more severely. Hence, we hold that a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) is a more commensurate penalty.

The judicial audit conducted in the branch of respondent Judge pursuant to the Court’s Resolution dated April 2, 2001 showed that respondent Judge failed to decide and act on the following cases and incidents:

1) Criminal Case No. 1398

2) Criminal Case No. 2123

3) Criminal Case No. 2151

4) Criminal Case No. 2216

5) Criminal Case No. 2306

6) Criminal Case No. 2320

7) Criminal Case No. 2338

8) Criminal Case No. 2339

9) Criminal Case No. 2343

10) Criminal Case No. 2350

11) Criminal Case No. 2353

12) Criminal Case No. 2402

13) Criminal Case No. 2414

14) Criminal Case No. 2427

15) Criminal Case No. 2444

16) Criminal Case No. 2452

17) Criminal Case No. 2453

18) Criminal Case No. 2467

19) Criminal Case No. 2470

20) Criminal Case No. 2475

21) Criminal Case No. 2518

22) Criminal Case No. 2545

23) Criminal Case No. 2546

24) Criminal Case No. 2568

25) Criminal Case No. 2630

26) Criminal Case No. 2637

27) Criminal Case No. 2737

28) Criminal Case No. 2738

29) Criminal Case No. 2754

30) Criminal Case No. 2773

31) Criminal Case No. 2787

32) Criminal Case No. 2846

33) Criminal Case No. 01-96

34) Criminal Case No. 09-96

35) Criminal Case No. 17-96

36) Criminal Case No. 75-96

37) Criminal Case No. 139-96

38) Criminal Case No. 140-96

39) Criminal Case No. 147-96

40) Criminal Case No. 10-97

41) Criminal Case No. 12-97

42) Criminal Case No. 25-97

43) Criminal Case No. 26-97

44) Criminal Case No. 30-97

45) Criminal Case No. 43-97

46) Criminal Case No. 44-97

47) Criminal Case No. 89-97

48) Criminal Case No. 90-97

49) Criminal Case No. 99-97

50) Criminal Case No. 100-97

51) Criminal Case No. 151-97

52) Criminal Case No. 03-98

53) Criminal Case No. 06-98

54) Criminal Case No. 39-98

55) Criminal Case No. 41-98

56) Criminal Case No. 51-98

57) Criminal Case No. 52-98

58) Criminal Case No. 55-98

59) Criminal Case No. 57-98

60) Criminal Case No. 72-98

61) Criminal Case No. 73-98

62) Criminal Case No. 75-98

63) Criminal Case No. 80-98

64) Criminal Case No. 124-98

65) Criminal Case No. 126-98

66) Criminal Case No. 133-98

67) Criminal Case No. 188-98

68) Criminal Case No. 190-98

69) Criminal Case No. 191-98

70) Criminal Case No. 192-98

71) Criminal Case No. 209-98

72) Criminal Case No. 214-98

73) Criminal Case No. 217-98

74) Criminal Case No. 231-98

75) Criminal Case No. 242-98

76) Criminal Case No. 09-99

77) Criminal Case No. 98-99

78) Criminal Case No. 128-99

79) Criminal Case No. 158-99

80) Criminal Case No. 159-99

81) Criminal Case No. 170-99

82) Criminal Case No. 171-99

83) Criminal Case No. 173-99

84) Criminal Case No. 241-99

85) Criminal Case No. 314-99

86) Criminal Case No. 334-99

87) Criminal Case No. 385-99

88) Criminal Case No. 422-99

89) Criminal Case No. 471-99

90) Criminal Case No. 472-99

91) Criminal Case No. 473-99

92) Criminal Case No. 479-99

93) Criminal Case No. 487-99

94) Criminal Case No. 559-99

95) Criminal Case No. 586-99

96) Criminal Case No. 587-99

97) Criminal Case No. 597-99

98) Criminal Case No. 10-2000

99) Criminal Case No. 13-2000

100) Criminal Case No. 71-2000

101) Criminal Case No. 72-2000

102) Criminal Case No. 73-2000

103) Criminal Case No. 81-2000

104) Criminal Case No. 121-2000

105) Civil Case No. 0399

106) Civil Case No. 0578

107) Civil Case No. 0641

108) Civil Case No. 0675

109) Civil Case No. 0692

110) Civil Case No. 0785

111) Civil Case No. 0807

112) Civil Case No. 0809

113) Civil Case No. 0852 (857)

114) Civil Case No. 0862

115) Civil Case No. 0863

116) Civil Case No. 0878

117) Civil Case No. 0877

118) Civil Case No. 0879

119) Civil Case No. 0885

120) Civil Case No. 0894

121) Civil Case No. 0899

122) Civil Case No. 0906

123) Civil Case No. 1029

124) Civil Case No. 1065

125) Civil Case No. 21-99

126) Civil Case No. SP-29-97

127) Civil Case No. SP-15-98

128) Civil Case No. SP-01-2000

129) Civil Case No. SP-18-2000

130) Civil Case No. MISC-1742

131) Civil Case No. MISC-30-99

132) Criminal Case No. 2650

133) Criminal Case No. 66-96

134) Criminal Case No. 131-97

135) Criminal Case No. 132-97

136) Civil Case No. 898

137) Civil Case No. 98-01

138) Civil Case No. 02-99

139) Civil Case No. 2000-07

140) Criminal Case No. 1906

141) Criminal Case No. 1907

142) Criminal Case No. 2241

143) Criminal Case No. 2301

144) Criminal Case No. 2625

145) Criminal Case No. 2749

146) Criminal Case No. 2884

147) Criminal Case No. 2954

148) Criminal Case No. 2983

149) Criminal Case No. 43-96

150) Criminal Case No. 102-97

151) Criminal Case No. 103-97

152) Criminal Case No. 104-98

153) Criminal Case No. 238-98

154) Criminal Case No. 12-99

155) Criminal Case No. 386-99

156) Criminal Case No. 387-99

157) Criminal Case No. 391-99

158) Criminal Case No. 242-2000

159) Criminal Case No. 262-2000

160) Criminal Case No. 275-2000

161) Criminal Case No. 73-2001

162) Civil Case No. 2021

163) Civil Case No. 1042

164) Civil Case No. 1043

165) Civil Case No. 97-17

166) Civil Case No. 97-23

167) Civil Case No. 97-27

168) Civil Case No. 98-13

169) Civil Case No. 98-17

170) Civil Case No. 27-99

171) Civil Case No. 2000-06

172) Civil Case No. 2000-20

173) Civil Case No. 2001-09

174) Civil Case No. 2001-11

175) Special Civil Action No. SCA-04-2000

176) Special Civil Action No. SCA-01-2001

177) Civil Case No. SP-31-98

178) Civil Case No. SP-19-99

179) Civil Case No. SP-21-99

180) Civil Case No. SP-51-99

181) Civil Case No. SP-06-2000

182) Civil Case No. SP-08-2000

183) Civil Case No. SP-13-2000

184) Civil Case No. SP-14-2000

185) Civil Case No. SP-25-2000

186) Civil Case No. SP-46-2000

187) Civil Case No. SP-08-2001

188) Civil Case No. MISC-09-2000

189) Civil Case No. MISC-02-2001

190) Criminal Case No. 211-2001

191) Civil Case No. 132

192) Civil Case No. 164

193) Civil Case No. 2001-12

194) Civil Case No. SP-22-2001

195) Civil Case No. MISC-18-2001

196) Civil Case No. MISC-26-2001

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano is found guilty of gross inefficiency and is FINED in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). He is directed to DECIDE Civil Cases Nos. 0271 and 0875 within Twenty (20) days from receipt of notice, and to DECIDE WITH DISPATCH Criminal Cases Nos. 496, 726, 1890; Civil Cases Nos. 0246 and 0824.

Further, respondent Judge is directed to:

(a) EXPLAIN why no decision was rendered in the following cases which were submitted for decision despite the lapse of the mandatory period to decide them:

1) Criminal Case No. 1398

2) Criminal Case No. 2123

3) Criminal Case No. 2151

4) Criminal Case No. 2216

5) Criminal Case No. 2306

6) Criminal Case No. 2320

7) Criminal Case No. 2338

8) Criminal Case No. 2339

9) Criminal Case No. 2343

10) Criminal Case No. 2350

11) Criminal Case No. 2353

12) Criminal Case No. 2402

13) Criminal Case No. 2414

14) Criminal Case No. 2427

15) Criminal Case No. 2444

16) Criminal Case No. 2452

17) Criminal Case No. 2453

18) Criminal Case No. 2467

19) Criminal Case No. 2470

20) Criminal Case No. 2475

21) Criminal Case No. 2518

22) Criminal Case No. 2545

23) Criminal Case No. 2546

24) Criminal Case No. 2568

25) Criminal Case No. 2630

26) Criminal Case No. 2637

27) Criminal Case No. 2737

28) Criminal Case No. 2738

29) Criminal Case No. 2754

30) Criminal Case No. 2773

31) Criminal Case No. 2787

32) Criminal Case No. 2846

33) Criminal Case No. 01-96

34) Criminal Case No. 09-96

35) Criminal Case No. 17-96

36) Criminal Case No. 75-96

37) Criminal Case No. 139-96

38) Criminal Case No. 140-96

39) Criminal Case No. 147-96

40) Criminal Case No. 10-97

41) Criminal Case No. 12-97

42) Criminal Case No. 25-97

43) Criminal Case No. 26-97

44) Criminal Case No. 30-97

45) Criminal Case No. 43-97

46) Criminal Case No. 44-97

47) Criminal Case No. 89-97

48) Criminal Case No. 90-97

49) Criminal Case No. 99-97

50) Criminal Case No. 100-97

51) Criminal Case No. 151-97

52) Criminal Case No. 03-98

53) Criminal Case No. 06-98

54) Criminal Case No. 39-98

55) Criminal Case No. 41-98

56) Criminal Case No. 51-98

57) Criminal Case No. 52-98

58) Criminal Case No. 55-98

59) Criminal Case No. 57-98

60) Criminal Case No. 72-98

61) Criminal Case No. 73-98

62) Criminal Case No. 75-98

63) Criminal Case No. 80-98

64) Criminal Case No. 124-98

65) Criminal Case No. 126-98

66) Criminal Case No. 133-98

67) Criminal Case No. 188-98

68) Criminal Case No. 190-98

69) Criminal Case No. 191-98

70) Criminal Case No. 192-98

71) Criminal Case No. 209-98

72) Criminal Case No. 214-98

73) Criminal Case No. 217-98

74) Criminal Case No. 231-98

75) Criminal Case No. 242-98

76) Criminal Case No. 09-99

77) Criminal Case No. 98-99

78) Criminal Case No. 128-99

79) Criminal Case No. 158-99

80) Criminal Case No. 159-99

81) Criminal Case No. 170-99

82) Criminal Case No. 171-99

83) Criminal Case No. 173-99

84) Criminal Case No. 241-99

85) Criminal Case No. 314-99

86) Criminal Case No. 334-99

87) Criminal Case No. 385-99

88) Criminal Case No. 422-99

89) Criminal Case No. 471-99

90) Criminal Case No. 472-99

91) Criminal Case No. 473-99

92) Criminal Case No. 479-99

93) Criminal Case No. 487-99

94) Criminal Case No. 559-99

95) Criminal Case No. 586-99

96) Criminal Case No. 587-99

97) Criminal Case No. 597-99

98) Criminal Case No. 10-2000

99) Criminal Case No. 13-2000

100) Criminal Case No. 71-2000

101) Criminal Case No. 72-2000

102) Criminal Case No. 73-2000

103) Criminal Case No. 81-2000

104) Criminal Case No. 121-2000

105) Civil Case No. 0399

106) Civil Case No. 0578

107) Civil Case No. 0641

108) Civil Case No. 0675

109) Civil Case No. 0692

110) Civil Case No. 0785

111) Civil Case No. 0807

112) Civil Case No. 0809

113) Civil Case No. 0852 (857)

114) Civil Case No. 0862

115) Civil Case No. 0863

116) Civil Case No. 0878

117) Civil Case No. 0877

118) Civil Case No. 0879

119) Civil Case No. 0885

120) Civil Case No. 0894

121) Civil Case No. 0899

122) Civil Case No. 0906

123) Civil Case No. 1029

124) Civil Case No. 1065

125) Civil Case No. 21-99

126) Civil Case No. SP-29-97

127) Civil Case No. SP-15-98

128) Civil Case No. SP-01-2000

129) Civil Case No. SP-18-2000

130) Civil Case No. MISC-1742

131) Civil Case No. MISC-30-99

(b) EXPLAIN why the pending matters or incidents for resolution in the following cases remain unresolved despite the lapse of the mandatory period, to wit:

1) Criminal Case No. 2650

2) Criminal Case No. 66-96

3) Criminal Case No. 131-97

4) Criminal Case No. 132-97

5) Civil Case No. 898

6) Civil Case No. 98-01

7) Civil Case No. 02-99

8) Civil Case No. 2000-07

(c) EXPLAIN why there are no further actions or settings in the court calendar in the following cases despite the lapse of a considerable period of time:

1) Criminal Case No. 1906

2) Criminal Case No. 1907

3) Criminal Case No. 2241

4) Criminal Case No. 2301

5) Criminal Case No. 2625

6) Criminal Case No. 2749

7) Criminal Case No. 2884

8) Criminal Case No. 2954

9) Criminal Case No. 2983

10) Criminal Case No. 43-96

11) Criminal Case No. 102-97

12) Criminal Case No. 103-97

13) Criminal Case No. 104-98

14) Criminal Case No. 238-98

15) Criminal Case No. 12-99

16) Criminal Case No. 386-99

17) Criminal Case No. 387-99

18) Criminal Case No. 391-99

19) Criminal Case No. 242-2000

20) Criminal Case No. 262-2000

21) Criminal Case No. 275-2000

22) Criminal Case No. 73-2001

23) Civil Case No. 2021

24) Civil Case No. 1042

25) Civil Case No. 1043

26) Civil Case No. 97-17

27) Civil Case No. 97-23

28) Civil Case No. 97-27

29) Civil Case No. 98-13

30) Civil Case No. 98-17

31) Civil Case No. 27-99

32) Civil Case No. 2000-06

33) Civil Case No. 2000-20

34) Civil Case No. 2001-09

35) Civil Case No. 2001-11

36) Special Civil Action No. SCA-04-2000

37) Special Civil Action No. SCA-01-2001

38) Civil Case No. SP-31-98

39) Civil Case No. SP-19-99

40) Civil Case No. SP-21-99

41) Civil Case No. SP-51-99

42) Civil Case No. SP-06-2000

43) Civil Case No. SP-08-2000

44) Civil Case No. SP-13-2000

45) Civil Case No. SP-14-2000

46) Civil Case No. SP-25-2000

47) Civil Case No. SP-46-2000

48) Civil Case No. SP-08-2001

49) Civil Case No. MISC-09-2000

50) Civil Case No. MISC-02-2001

(d) EXPLAIN why no initial action was taken from the following cases from the time it was raffled or assigned to his branch, to wit:

1) Criminal Case No. 211-2001

2) Civil Case No. 132

3) Civil Case No. 164

4) Civil Case No. 2001-12

5) Civil Case No. SP-22-2001

6) Civil Case No. MISC-18-2001

7) Civil Case No. MISC-26-2001

(e) DECIDE WITH DISPATCH all the cases enumerated in paragraph (a); RESOLVE WITH DISPATCH the pending matters or incidents in the cases enumerated under paragraph (b); TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION on all of the cases enumerated under paragraph (c) and (d); and FURNISH the Court through the Office of the Court Administrator with copies of said decision, order or resolution within Ten (10) days from rendition thereof.

Branch Clerk of Court Gary B. Vergara is directed to:

(a) EXPLAIN why no report has yet been submitted in Civil Cases Nos. MISC-03-97 and MISC-08-2000 despite the completion of the ex parte presentation of evidence of the petitioners thereon;

(b) SUBMIT a report thereon within Ten (10) days from receipt of notice through Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano of the same court; and

(c) INFORM the Court through the Office of the Court Administrator whether the decision had been rendered in the following cases:

1) Criminal Case No. 53-97

2)Criminal Case No. 54-97

3) Criminal Case No. 55-97

4) Criminal Case No. 56-97

5) Criminal Case No. 57-97

6) Criminal Case No. 58-97

7) Criminal Case No. 59-97

8) Criminal Case No. 60-97

9) Criminal Case No. 61-97

10) Criminal Case No. 117-98

11) Criminal Case No. 02-99

12) Civil Case No. SP-06-2001

and whether the pending matters and incidents in the following cases had been resolved, to wit:

1) Criminal Case No. 01-97

2) Criminal Case No. 118-97

3) Criminal Case No. 119-97

4) Criminal Case No. 120-97

5) Criminal Case No. 148-97

6) Criminal Case No. 130-98

7) Criminal Case No. 139-98

8) Criminal Case No. 140-98

9) Criminal Case No. 141-98

10) Criminal Case No. 142-98

11) Criminal Case No. 143-98

12) Criminal Case No. 144-98

13) Criminal Case No. 145-98

14) Criminal Case No. 192-98

15) Criminal Case No. 121-2001

16) Civil Case No. 98-32

17) Civil Case No. SP-168

(d) FURNISH the Court through the Office of the Court Administrator with copies of the decision, order or resolution within Ten (10) days from rendition thereof

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Vitug, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.


Footnotes

1 Dysico v. Dacumos, 330 Phil. 834 [1996]; Re: Report on the Audit and Inventory of Cases in RTC, Branch 55, Alaminos, Pangasinan, 331 Phil. 43 [1996]; Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, A.M. No. 93-2-1001, 5 September 1995, 248 SCRA 5; Re: Query of Judge Danilo M. Tenerife, 325 Phil. 464 [1996]; Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records of Cases in MTCC, Br. 2, Batangas City, A.M. No. 94-10-96-MTCC, 5 September 1995 248 SCRA 36; Bentulan v. Dumatol, A.M. No. RTJ-93-999, 15 June 1994, 233 SCRA 168; Re: Letter of Mr. Octavio Kalalo, A.M. No. 93-7-1158-RTC, 24 March 1993, 231 SCRA 403 [1993]; Longboan v. Polig, A.M. No. R-704-RTJ, 14 June 1990, 186 SCRA 556.

2 Sy Bang v. Mendez, A.M. No. RTJ-94-1257, 6 March 1998, 287 SCRA 84, 89, citing Rule 3.05, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct.

3 Ibid., p. 90.

4 Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, supra.

5 Sanchez v. Vestil, supra, citing OCA v. Judge Walerico Butalid, supra; see also Grefaldeo v. Judge Lacson, supra.

6 Hernandez v. De Guzman, 322 Phil. 65 [1996].

7 OCA v. Judge Lyliha A. Aquino, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1555, 22 June 2000, 334 SCRA 179, citing Casia v. Gestopa, supra, citing Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, 347 Phil. 139 [1997].

8 A.M. No. RTJ-1607, 3 April 2002.


The Lawphil Project - Arellano Law Foundation