The Case

Submitted to the Court for consideration is a resolution of the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter, the IBP) recommending an inquiry into the causes of delays in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases pending before the Sandiganbayan.

The Antecedents

On July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim, transmitted to the Court a Resolution^[1] addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan (hereafter, the Resolution).^[2] We quote the Resolution in full:^[3]

"WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies,"

"WHEREAS, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers mandates that "[a] lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice;"

"WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undertake measures to assist in the speedy disposition of cases pending before the various courts and tribunals;

"WHEREAS, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has received numerous complaints from its members about serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan;

"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 requires all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial Courts to submit to the Supreme Court a bi-annual report indicating the title of the case, its date of filing, the date of pre-trial in civil cases and arraignment in criminal cases, the date of initial trial, the date of last hearing and the date that the case is submitted for decision, and to post, in a conspicuous place within its premises, a monthly list of cases submitted for decision;

"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not been made applicable to the Sandiganbayan;

"WHEREAS, considering that the Sandiganbayan is also a trial court, the requirements imposed upon trial courts by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 should also be imposed upon the Sandiganbayan;

"NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines hereby resolves as follows:

"1. To recommend to the Supreme Court that Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 be made applicable to the Sandiganbayan in regard cases over which the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction; and

"2. To recommend to the Supreme Court an inquiry into the causes of delay in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases before the Sandiganbayan for the purpose of enacting measures intended at avoiding such delays.

"Done in Los Baños, Laguna, this 29^th day of July, 2000."

On August 8, 2000, the Court required Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena to comment on the letter of the IBP and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayan cases pending decision, or with motion for reconsideration pending resolution, indicating the dates they were deemed submitted for decision or resolution.^[4]

On September 27, 2000, complying with the order, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a report^[5] (hereafter, the compliance) admitting a number of cases submitted for decision and motion for reconsideration pending resolution before its divisions. We quote:

	"Cases Submitted	W/ Motions For Reconsideration
	"For Decision
"1st Division	341	None
"2nd Division	5	None
"3rd Division	12	None
"4th Division	5	None
"5th Division	52	1
"Total	415"[6]

Thus, the Sandiganbayan has a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases for decision remaining undecided long beyond the reglementary period to decide, with one case submitted as early as May 24, 1990,^[7] and motion for reconsideration which has remained unresolved over thirty days from submission.^[8]

On October 20, 2000, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a "schedule of cases submitted for decision, the schedule indicating the number of detained prisoners, of which there are (were) none."^[9]

On October 26, 2000, the IBP submitted its reply to the compliance stating: First, that it was not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the compliance; nonetheless, it showed that there was much to be desired with regard to the expeditious disposition of cases, particularly in the Sandiganbayan's First Division, where cases submitted for decision since 1990 remained unresolved. Second, the compliance did not include pending motions, and it is a fact that motions not resolved over a long period of time would suspend and delay the disposition of a case. Third, since the Sandiganbayan is a trial court, it is required to submit the same reports required of Regional Trial Courts. Fourth, the Constitution^[10] states that, "all lower collegiate courts" must decide or resolve cases or matters before it within twelve (12) months "from date of submission"; however, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is required to resolve and decide cases within a reduced period of three (3) months like regional trial courts, or at the most, six (6) months from date of submission.^[11]

On November 21, 2000, the Court resolved to direct then Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo (hereafter, the OCA) "to conduct a judicial audit of the Sandiganbayan, especially on the cases subject of this administrative matter, and to submit a report thereon not later than 31 December 2000."^[12]

On December 4, 2000, in a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan^[13] has a backlog of cases; that one case^[14] alone made the backlog of the First Division so large, involving 156 cases but the same has been set for promulgation of decision on December 8, 2000, which would reduce the backlog by at least fifty percent (50%).^[15]

On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum to the Court^[16] stating that the causes of delay in the disposition of cases before the Sandiganbayan are:^[17]

(1)	Failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation report despite the lapse of several years;
(2)	Filing of numerous incidents such as Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Quash, Demurrer to Evidence, etc. that remain unresolved for years;
(3)	Suspension of proceedings because of a pending petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court;
(4)	Cases remain unacted upon or have no further settings despite the lapse of considerable length of time; and
(5)	Unloading of cases already submitted for decision even if the ponente is still in service.

We consider ex mero motu the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as an administrative complaint against Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena for "serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan," amounting to incompetence, inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and misconduct in office.

We find no need to conduct a formal investigation of the charges in view of the admission of Justice Francis E. Garchitorena in his compliance of October 20, 2000, that there are indeed hundreds of cases pending decision beyond the reglementary period of ninety (90) days from their submission. In one case, he not only admitted the delay in deciding the case but took sole responsibility for such inaction for more than ten (10) years that constrained this Court to grant mandamus to dismiss the case against an accused to give substance and meaning to his constitutional right to speedy trial.^[18]

The Issues

The issues presented are the following: (1) What is the reglementary period within which the Sandiganbayan must decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction? (2) Are there cases submitted for decision remaining undecided by the Sandiganbayan or any of its divisions beyond the afore-stated reglementary period? (3) Is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the Sandiganbayan?^[19]

The Court's Ruling

We resolve the issues presented in seriatim.

1. Period To Decide/Resolve Cases.--There are two views. The first view is that from the time a case is submitted for decision or resolution, the Sandiganbayan has twelve (12) months to decide or resolve it.^[20] The second view is that as a court with trial function, the Sandiganbayan has three (3) months to decide the case from the date of submission for decision.^[21]

Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 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 to 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.

"(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself."^[22]

The above provision does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals.^[23]

The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice,^[24] with functions of a trial court.^[25]

Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one.^[26] The Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure.^[27] However, on March 30, 1995, Congress repealed the Sandiganbayan's power to promulgate its own rules of procedure^[28] and instead prescribed that the Rules of Court promulgated by the Supreme Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan.^[29]

"Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized categories of actions. They are the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan, and the Shari'a Courts."^[30]

Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution "Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."

In his report, the Court Administrator would distinguish between cases which the Sandiganbayan has cognizance of in its original jurisdiction,^[31] and cases which fall within the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.^[32] The Court Administrator posits that since in the first class of cases, the Sandiganbayan acts more as a trial court, then for that classification of cases, the three (3) month reglementary period applies. For the second class of cases, the Sandiganbayan has the twelve-month reglementary period for collegiate courts.^[33] We do not agree.

The law creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 1606^[34] is clear on this issue.^[35] It provides:

"Sec. 6. Maximum period for termination of cases - As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous until terminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision."

On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules,^[36] thus:^[37]

"Sec. 3 Maximum Period to Decide Cases - The judgment or final order of a division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision (underscoring ours)."

Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3) month period, not the twelve (12) month period, to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan presently sitting in five (5) divisions,^[38] functions as a trial court. The term "trial" is used in its broad sense, meaning, it allows introduction of evidence by the parties in the cases before it.^[39] The Sandiganbayan, in original cases within its jurisdiction, conducts trials, has the discretion to weigh the evidence of the parties, admit the evidence it regards as credible and reject that which they consider perjurious or fabricated.^[40]

Compliance with its Own Rules

In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of Appeals,^[41] the Court faulted the DARAB for violating its own rules of procedure. We reasoned that the DARAB does not have unfettered discretion to suspend its own rules. We stated that the DARAB "should have set the example of observance of orderly procedure." Otherwise, it would render its own Revised Rules of Procedure uncertain and whose permanence would be dependent upon the instability of its own whims and caprices.

Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec,^[42] this Court held that the Commission on Elections ought to be the first one to observe its own Rules. Its departure from its own rules constitutes "arrogance of power" tantamount to abuse. Such inconsistency denigrates public trust in its objectivity and dependability. The Court reminded the Comelec to be more judicious in its actions and decisions and avoid imprudent volte-face moves that undermine the public's faith and confidence in it.

The ratio decidendi in the afore-cited cases applies mutatis mutandis to the Sandiganbayan. The Sandiganbayan ought to be the first to observe its own rules. It cannot suspend its rules, or except a case from its operation.

2. Undecided Cases Beyond the Reglementary Period.--We find that the Sandiganbayan has several cases undecided beyond the reglementary period set by the statutes and its own rules, some as long as more than ten (10) years ago.

According to the compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan, three hundred and forty one (341) cases were submitted for decision but were undecided as of September 15, 2000. A number of the cases were submitted for decision as far back as more than ten (10) years ago. As of September 15, 2000, the following cases^[43] had not been decided:^[44]

                                                             First Division

Case Title	Case No.	Date Submitted for Decision
(1) People v. Pañares	12127	May 24, 1990
(2) People v. Gabriel Duero	11999	December 11, 1990
(3) People v. Rhiza  Monterozo	133533	December 14, 1990
(4) People v. Zenon R.  Perez	13353	January 7, 1991
(5) People v. Bernardo B.  Dayao, Jr.	12305-12306	February 7, 1991
(6) People v. Melquiades Ribo	13521	May 7, 1991
(7) People v. Carlos Benitez	12102	June 19, 1991
(8) People v. Salvador P. Nopre, et. al.	11156-11160	August 9, 1991
(9) People v. Delfina A.  Letegio	12289	August 28, 1991
(10) People v. Rodolfo A.   Lasquite	13618	August 28, 1991
(11) People v. Potenciana Evangelista	13679-13680	September 3, 1991
(12) People v. Ramon N. Guico, Jr. et. al	16516	December 2, 1991
(13) People v. Ruperto N.   Solares	16239	January 10, 1992
(14) People v. Socorro Alto	13708	March 9, 1992
(15) People v. Tomas   Baguio	130151	March 11, 1992
(16) People v. Felipa D. de Veyra	13672	April 13, 1992
(17) People v. Felicidad Tabang	12139	July 23, 1992
(18) People v. Jose S.  Buguiña	14227	September 9, 1992
(19) People v. Eleno T. Regidor, et al.	13689-13695	January 6, 1993
(20) People v. Serafin   Unilongo	14411	February 2, 1993
(21) People v. Manuel   Parale, et al.	15168	June 21, 1993
(22) People v. Robert P. Wa-acon	14375	June 21, 1993
(23) People v. Linda J. Necessito	13668	July 13, 1993
(24) People v. Simon Flores	16946	August 4, 1993
(25) People v. Alejandro F.  Buccat	14986	August 31, 1993
(26) People v. Irma  Collera Monge	15301	March 9, 1994
(27) People v. Melencio F.   Ilajas	9977	May 10, 1994
(28) People v.   Buenaventura Q.  Sindac, et al.	13747-13748	August 19, 1994
(29) People v. Jesus A. Bravo	17514	August 24, 1994
(30) People v. Raul S. Tello	15006	November 15, 1994
(31) People v. Celso N.   Jacinto	14975	January 10, 1995
(32) People v. Mayor  Antonio Abad Santos,   et al.	17670	January 24, 1995
(33) People v. Lamberto R. Te	20588	February 14, 1995
(34) People v. Ale   Francisco	21020	July 18, 1995
(35) People v. Dir. Felix R.  Gonzales, et al.	13563	July 25, 1995
(36) People v. Mayor  Adelina Gabatan, et al.	14324	January 3, 1996
(37) People v. Victoria  Posadas-Adona	17202	January 4, 1996
(38) People v. Roberto Estanislao Chang, et al.	16854	January 22, 1996
(39) People v. Godofredo Yambao, et al.	16927-16928	March 13, 1996
(40) People v. Honesto G. Encina	13171	April 26, 1996
(41) People v. Pablito   Rodriguez	13971	May 10, 1996
(42) People v. Leandro A.   Suller	17759	June 28, 1996
(43) People v. Trinidad M.  Valdez	16695	August 26, 1996
(44) People v. Vivencio B.   Patagoc	19651	January 27, 1997
(45) People v. Engr.  Antonio B. Laguador	14195	March 31, 1997
(46) People v. Paterno C. Belciña, Jr.	16583-16585	March 31, 1997
(47) People v. SPO3  Serafin V. Reyes	21608	March 31, 1997
(48) People v. Mayor  Samuel F. Bueser, et al.	22195-22196	March 31, 1997
(49) People v. Romeo C. Monteclaro	14223	May 6, 1997
(50) People v. Rodolfo E.  Aguinaldo	20948-20949	October 17, 1997
(51) People v. Aniceto M.  Sobrepeña	23324	October 27, 1997
(52) People v. Marietta T.  Caugma, et al.	17001	November 26, 1997
(53) People v. Mayor   Meliton Geronimo, et   al.	19708	February 23, 1998
(54) People v. Fernando Miguel, et al.	17600	April 7, 1998
(55) People v. Rogelio A. Aniversario	17601	April 7, 1998
(56) People v. Corazon Gammad Leaño	9812-9967	May 8, 1998
(57) People v. Teresita S.   Lazaro	17901	June 8, 1998
(58) People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo Jarque, et al.	20688	October 19, 1998
(59) People v. Pros. Filotea Estorninos	23509	October 19, 1998
(60) People v. Orlando Mina	19534-19545	October 20, 1998
(61) People v. Vice Gov. Milagros A. Balgos	23042	October 20, 1998
(62) People v. Ceferino Paredes, Jr., et al.	18857	November 17, 1998
(63) People v. Brig. Gen. Rayundo Jarque, et al.	18696	January 15, 1999
(64) People v. Mayor  Agustin R. Escaño, Jr.	23336	January 15, 1999
(65) People v. Mayor  Edgar V. Teves, et al.	23374	January 15, 1999
(66) People v. C/Supt.  Alfonso T. Clemente, et al.	22832	January 29, 1999
(67) People v. Dominica Santos	19059-19063	February 18, 1999
(68) People v. Edith G. Tico	23273	April 20, 1999
(69) People v. Sec.  Hilarion J. Ramiro, et  al.	23511	August 6, 1999
(70) People v. Timoteo A.  Garcia, et al.	24042-24098	August 6, 1999
(71) People v. Mayor Jeceju L. Manaay	24402	August 6, 1999
(72) People v. Dir.  Rosalinda Majarais, et  al.	24355	August 18, 1999
(73) People v. Victor S. Limlingan	24281	August 13, 1999
(74) People v. Nestor S. Castillo, et al.	24631	August 31, 1999
(75) People v. Apolinar  Candelaria	22145	September 6, 1999
(76) People v. Bernardo Billote Resoso	19773-19779	October 11, 1999
(77) People v. Atty.  Alfredo Fordan Rellora, et al.	24433-24434	October 11, 1999
(78) People v. Faustino Balacuit	98	December 22, 1999
(79) People v. Mayor  Bernardino Alcaria, Jr., et al.	23418-23423	January 6, 2000
(80) People v. Joel R.   Lachica, et al.	24319-24329	January 6, 2000
(81) People v. Jose   Micabalo, et al.	24531-24534	April 27, 2000
(82) People v. Mayor   Eduardo Alarilla	23069	May 29, 2000
(83) People v. Pros. Nilo M. Sarsaba, et al.	23323	May 29, 2000
(84) People v. Philip G. Zamora	24150	May 29, 2000

                                                             Second Division^*

Case Title	Case No.	Date Submitted for Decision
(1) People v. Marcelino Cordova, et al.	18435	August 11, 2000
(2) People v. Benjamin T.  Damian	22858	August 11, 2000
(3)People v. Lino L. Labis, et al.	22398	July 18, 2000
(4)People v. Alfredo Sarmiento, et al.	24407-24408	August 11, 2000

                                                             Third Division^**

Case Title	Case No.	Date Submitted for Decision
(1) People v. Sergia Zoleta	A/R # 016	November 16, 1999
(2) People v. Manuel Solon Y Tenchaves	A/R # 029	December 9, 1999
(3) People v. Eliseo L. Ruiz	13861-13863	April 6, 2000
(4) People v. Manuel R.  Galvez, et al.	13889	September 30, 1999
(5) People v. Tolentino  Mendoza, et al.	16756	August 28, 1999
(6) People v. Rodrigo Villas	19563	April 6, 2000
(7) People v. Ernesto Vargas	19574	April 6, 2000
(8) People v. Ernesto, Vargas, et al.	20053	April 6, 2000
(9) People v. Marcelo T.  Abrenica, et al.	23522	July 6, 2000
(10) People v. Florencio   Garay, et al.	25657	May 5, 200

                                                             Fourth Division^***

Case Title	Case No.	Date Submitted for Decision
(1) People v. Jaime Alos, et  Al.	17664	August 31, 1999
(2) People v. Antonio R. De Vera	23366	November 26, 1999
(3) People v. Aurora Mantele	24841-42	May 9, 2000
(4) People v. Olegario Clarin, Jr., et al.	25198	July 12, 2000

                                                             Fifth Division^****

Case Title	Case No.	Date Submitted for Decision
(1) People v. Nestor A. Pablo	13344	January 16, 1998
(2) People v. Hernand D.  Dabalus, et al.	14397	January 13, 1999
(3) People v. Eduardo Pilapil	16672	March 23, 2000
(4) People v. P/Sgt. Nazario Marifosque	17030	April 16, 1998
(5) People v. Ignacio B. Bueno	17055	September 12, 1995
(6) People v. Corazon G. Garlit	17072	March 31, 1997
(7) People v. Mayor Rufo  Pabelonia, et al.	17538	November 14, 1995
(8) People v. Enrique B. Lenon, et al.	17617	March 13, 1996
(9) People v. Constancio Bonite, et al.	17618-17619	May 1, 1995
(10) People v. Jesus Villanueva	17884	January 9, 1996
(11) People v. Ricardo T.  Liwanag, et al.	18008	March 9, 1998
(12) People v. Ma. Lourdes L. Falcon	18036	January 18, 1995
(13) People v. Luis D.   Montero, et al.	18684	July 24, 1998
(14) People v. Roel D. Morales	18699	December 22, 1995
(15) People v. Diosdado T. Gulle	18759	October 18, 1995
(16) People v. Benjamin  Sapitula, et al.	18785	August 31, 1995
(17) People v. Danilo R.   Santos, et al.	18932	November 4, 1997
(18) People v. Pat. Danilo   Marañon	19039	May 24, 1995
(19) People v. Romeo Cabando, et al.	19378-19379	May 27, 1996
(20) People v. SPO2 Rodolfo Burbos	19593	July 6, 1998
(21) People v. Guillermo M. Viray, et al.	19614	August 31, 1998
(22) People v. Mayor Bonifacio Balahay	20427	November 5, 1999
(23) People v. Enrique Sy, et al.	20487	December 17, 1998
(24) People v. PO2 Manuel L. Bien	20648-20649	March 31, 1998
(25) People v. Felipe L. Laodenio	23066	September 28, 1999
(26) People v. Mayor Walfrido A. Siasico	23427	January 16, 1998

The Sandiganbayan is a special court created "in an effort to maintain honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy, weed out misfits and undesirables in the government and eventually stamp out graft and corruption."^[45] We have held consistently that a delay of three (3) years in deciding a single case is inexcusably long.^[46] We can not accept the excuses of Presiding Justice Sandiganbayan Francis E. Garchitorena that the court was reorganized in 1997; that the new justices had to undergo an orientation and that the Sandiganbayan relocated to its present premises which required the packing and crating of records; and that some boxes were still unopened.^[47]

We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena's excuse that one case alone^[48] comprises more that fifty percent (50%) of the First Division's backlog and that the same has been set for promulgation on December 8, 2000.^[49] As we said, a delay in a single case cannot be tolerated, "para muestra, basta un boton." (for an example, one button suffices). It is admitted that there are several other cases submitted for decision as far back as ten (10) years ago that have remained undecided by the First Division, of which Justice Garchitorena is presiding justice and chairman. Indeed, there is even one case, which is a simple motion to withdraw the information filed by the prosecutor. This has remained unresolved for more than seven (7) years (since 1994).^[50] The compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice incriminates him. The memorandum submitted by the Court Administrator likewise testifies to the unacceptable situation in the Sandiganbayan. Indeed, there is a disparity in the reports submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice and the OCA. According to the Court Administrator, the cases submitted for decision that were still pending promulgation^[51] before the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are:^[52]

                              First Division

Case Number	Date Submitted
Criminal Cases
1. 11156	8/9/91
2. 11157	8/9/91
3. 11158	8/9/91
4. 11159	8/9/91
5. 11160	8/9/91
6. 11999	12/10/90
7. 12102	7/1/91
8. 12127	2/12/90
9. 12139	6/10/92
10. 12289	8/28/91
11. 12305	2/7/91
12. 12306	2/7/91
13. 13015	3/2/92
14. 13171	11/16/95
15. 13353	10/6/90
16. 13521	12/12/99
17. 13563	7/4/95
18. 13618	7/14/91
19. 13668	6/13/93
20. 13672	3/5/92
21. 13679	8/6/91
22. 13680	8/6/91
23. 13689	11/14/92
24. 13690	11/14/92
25. 13691	11/14/92
26. 13692	11/14/92
27. 13693	11/14/92
28. 13694	11/14/92
29. 13695	11/14/92
30. 13708	3/9/92
31. 13747	8/19/94
32. 13748	8/19/94
33. 13971	3/12/95
34. 14223	3/7/97
35. 14227	9/5/92
36. 14230	11/30/90
37. 14287	7/3/94
38. 14324	11/5/95
39. 14375	5/22/95
40. 14411	1/24/93
41. 14975	9/29/94
42. 14986	12/11/92
43. 15006	11/19/94
44. 15168	3/25/93
45. 15301	3/16/94
46. 16239	12/26/91
47. 16516	11/19/91
48. 16583	8/13/96
49. 16584	8/13/96
50. 16585	8/13/96
51. 16695	8/15/96
52. 16854	1/15/96
53. 16927	12/17/95
54. 16928	12/17/95
55. 16946	8/4/93
56. 17001	9/4/97
57. 17278	5/2/94
58. 17447	9/6/94
59. 17448	9/6/94
60. 17514	8/19/94
61. 17600	8/30/97
62. 17601	8/30/97
63. 17670	11/25/94
64. 17759	6/25/96
65. 17901	5/28/98
66. 18283	2/21/95
67. 18696	8/9/98
68. 18857	10/21/98
69. 19059	2/11/99
70. 19060	2/11/99
71. 19061	2/11/99
72. 19062	2/11/99
73. 19063	2/11/99
74. 19534	9/2/98
75. 19535	9/2/98
76. 19651	11/15/96
77. 19708	8/25/98
78. 19773	5/21/99
79. 19774	5/21/99
80. 19775	5/21/99
81. 19976	5/21/99
82. 19977	5/21/99
83. 19978	5/21/99
84. 19979	5/21/99
85. 20588	2/14/95
86. 20688	7/9/98
87. 20948	10/9/97
88. 20949	10/9/97
89. 21020	7/4/95
90. 22145	7/7/99
91. 22195	6/14/96
92. 22196	6/14/96
93. 22832	10/21/98
94. 23042	8/27/98
95. 23146	11/13/00
96. 23273	4/19/99
97. 23323	3/23/00
98. 23324	8/3/97
99. 23336	9/4/97
100. 23374	12/17/98
101. 23418	10/15/99
102. 23419	10/15/99
103. 23420	10/15/99
104. 23421	10/15/99
105. 23422	10/15/99
106. 23423	10/15/99
107. 23509	9/5/98
108. 23511	4/23/99
109. 23540	10/15/99
110. 24042	4/28/99
111. 24043	4/28/99
112. 24044	4/28/99
113. 24045	4/28/99
114. 24046	4/28/99
115. 24047	4/28/99
116. 24048	4/28/99
117. 24049	4/28/99
118. 24050	4/28/99
119. 24051	4/28/99
120. 24052	4/28/99
121. 24053	4/28/99
122. 24054	4/28/99
123. 24055	4/28/99
124. 24056	4/28/99
125. 24057	4/28/99
126. 24058	4/28/99
127. 24059	4/28/99
128. 24060	4/28/99
129. 24061	4/28/99
130. 24062	4/28/99
131. 24063	4/28/99
132. 24064	4/28/99
133. 24065	4/28/99
134. 24066	4/28/99
135. 24067	4/28/99
136. 24068	4/28/99
137. 24069	4/28/99
138. 24070	4/28/99
139. 24071	4/28/99
140. 24072	4/28/99
141. 24073	4/28/99
142. 24074	4/28/99
143. 24075	4/28/99
144. 24076	4/28/99
145. 24077	4/28/99
146. 24078	4/28/99
147. 24079	4/28/99
148. 24080	4/28/99
149. 24081	4/28/99
150. 24082	4/28/99
151. 24083	4/28/99
152. 24084	4/28/99
153. 24085	4/28/99
154. 24086	4/28/99
155. 24087	4/28/99
156. 24088	4/28/99
157. 24089	4/28/99
158. 24090	4/28/99
159. 24091	4/28/99
160. 24092	4/28/99
161. 24093	4/28/99
162. 24094	4/28/99
163. 24095	4/28/99
164. 24096	4/28/99
165. 24097	4/28/99
166. 24098	4/28/99
167. 24150	1/31/00
168. 24236	2/14/00
169. 24237	2/14/00
170. 24281	5/9/99
171. 24319	11/4/99
172. 24320	11/4/99
173. 24321	11/4/99
174. 24322	11/4/99
175. 24323	11/4/99
176. 24324	11/4/99
177. 24325	11/4/99
178. 24326	11/4/99
179. 24327	11/4/99
180. 24328	11/4/99
181. 24329	11/4/99
182. 24339	10/20/00
183. 24355	2/18/99
184. 24395	7/13/99
185. 24402	6/17/99
186. 24433	9/6/99
187. 24434	9/6/99
188. 24531	12/16/99
189. 24532	12/16/99
190. 24533	12/16/99
191. 24534	12/16/99
192. 24631	8/9/99
193. 24768	7/8/00
194. 6672	7/11/90
195. 9977	5/10/94
Civil Case
1. 0112	1/11/92
2. 0116	10/16/91
3. 0156	3/14/97

                              Second Division

Case No.	Date Submitted
Criminal Case
1. 19542	4/16/99
2. 19004	9/10/96
3. 22934	10/14/00
4. 20483	8/28/96
5. 20484	8/28/96
6. 23529	10/23/00
7. 23530	10/23/00
8. 23338	12/2/99
9. 18786	11/28/00
10. 19686	07/2/97
11. 184403	12/4/98
12. 184404	12/4/98
13. 184405	12/4/98
14. 184406	12/4/98
15. 184407	12/4/98
16. 184408	12/4/98
17. 184409	12/4/98
18. 184410	12/4/98
19. 184411	12/4/98
20. 184412	12/4/98
21. 184413	12/4/98
22. 184414	12/4/98
23. 184415	12/4/98
24. 184416	12/4/98
25. 184417	12/4/98
26. 13827	8/30/00
27. 13828	8/30/00
28. 13829	8/30/00
29. 13830	8/30/00
30. 13831	8/30/00
31. 13832	8/30/00
32. 18965	11/30/00
33. 19848	3/28/96
34. 20765	8/30/96
35. 20816	3/11/98
36. 19692	8/27/00
37. 19693	8/27/00
38. 19694	8/27/00
39. 19695	8/27/00
40. 19696	8/27/00
41. 19697	8/27/00
42. 19698	8/27/00
43. 19699	8/27/00
44. 19700	8/27/00
45. 19701	8/27/00
46. 19702	8/27/00
47. 19703	8/27/00
48. 19704	8/27/00
49. 19705	8/27/00
50. 19706	8/27/00
51. 19707	8/27/00
52. 23262	10/11/00
53. AR#035	12/9/00
54. 24994	8/17/00
55. 21097	12/13/00
56. 20660	12/20/00
57. 23111	11/27/00
58. 24407	7/27/00
59. 24408	7/27/00
60. 18435	3/21/00
61. 22858	8/4/00
62. 22976	5/4/99
Civil Case
1. 0171	7/10/00

                              Third Division

Case Number	Date Submitted
1.SCA/005	12/18/00
2.A/R 016	8/5/99
3.A/R 029	10/2/00
4.487	4/8/98
5.488	4/8/98
6.489	4/8/98
7.490	4/8/98
8.491	4/8/98
9.11794	6/10/00
10.13861	4/6/00
11. 13862	4/6/00
12. 13863	4/6/00
13. 13889	3/25/99
14. 16756	8/25/99
15. 17532	12/11/00
16. 18867	10/5/00
17. 18868	10/5/00
18. 18869	10/5/00
19. 18870	10/5/00
20. 18871	10/5/00
21. 18872	10/5/00
22. 19182	4/6/00
23. 19563	4/6/00
24. 19574	4/6/00
25. 19622	4/6/00
26. 19623	4/6/00
27. 19624	4/6/00
28. 20053	4/6/00
29. 20054	4/6/00
30. 20271	12/18/00
31. 22143	12/18/00
32. 23014	9/23/00
33. 23522	7/6/00
34. 23699	3/22/00
35. 23700	3/22/00
36. 23701	3/22/00
37. 23802	9/10/00
38. 23803	9/10/00
39. 24153	12/18/00
40. 24697	9/10/00
41. 24698	9/10/00
42. 24741	12/7/00
43. 24779	10/28/00
44. 24780	10/28/00
45. 24781	10/28/00
46. 25657	5/5/00

                              Fourth Division

Case No.	Date Submitted
1. 11960	09/21/98
2.17664	01/29/98
3.13036	02/22/99
4.13037	02/22/99
5.13593	05/21/96
6.13594	05/21/96
7.13757	03/21/97
8.14380	02/14/95
9.16809	03/26/00
10.17015	06/06/94
11.17016	06/06/94
12.17140	06/13/96
13.17141	06/13/96
14.17209	12/27/96
15.17805	02/15/00
16.17806	02/15/00
17.17809	02/15/00
18. 17856	04/02/00
19. 18005	05/07/96
20. 18006	05/07/96
21. 18257	09/22/97
22. 18894	11/17/00
23. 18895	11/17/00
24. 18896	11/17/00
25. 18900	10/28/00
26. 18935	06/16/00
27. 18936	06/16/00
28. 18937	06/16/00
29. 19567	05/21/96
30. 20338	05/19/97
31. 20469	07/07/00
32. 20470	07/07/00
33. 20471	07/07/00
34. 20472	07/07/00
35. 20473	07/07/00
36. 20474	07/07/00
37. 20475	07/07/00
38. 20476	07/07/00
39. 20664	06/29/96
40. 20685	02/18/00
41. 20828	09/13/00
42. 21093	08/07/99
43. 21131	08/04/96
44. 21778	09/29/97
45. 21779	09/29/97
46. 21780	09/29/97
47. 22891	03/02/00
48. 22892	03/02/00
49. 23007	05/24/99
50. 23058	04/27/00
51. 23059	04/27/00
52. 23060	04/27/00
53. 23061	04/27/00
54. 23062	04/27/00
55. 23366	03/28/99
56. 23415	05/25/00
57. 23534	12/15/00
58. 23708	09/27/00
59. 24447	09/18/00
60. 24448	09/18/00
61. 24464	07/26/00
62. 24465	07/26/00
63. 24742	10/10/00
64. 24841	03/22/00
65. 24842	03/22/00
66. 24851	10/29/00
67. 25198	05/31/00
68. 25389	09/26/00
69. 25543	12/27/00
70. 25658	07/28/00

                              Fifth Division

Case Number	Date Submitted
Criminal Cases
1. 14397	1/4/99
2. 16672	2/13/00
3. 17030	2/19/98
4. 17826	12/9/00
5. 17827	12/9/00
6. 18478	8/21/00
7. 18684	5/29/98
8. 18880	12/6/00
9. 19510	12/4/00
10. 19511	12/4/00
11. 19512	12/4/00
12. 19593	6/5/98
13. 19614	7/31/98
14. 19668	7/26/98
15. 20194	1/8/01
16. 20427	11/3/99
17. 20648	1/4/98
18. 20649	1/4/98
19. 20694	3/11/98
20. 21882	8/12/00
21. 22184	12/16/00
22. 22873	12/4/99
23. 22926	11/13/00
24. 23066	8/16/99
25. 23319	9/30/00
26. 23450	9/16/00
27. 23515	1/29/00
28. 24155	11/30/00
29. 24379	8/27/00
30. 24759	5/5/00
31. 24858	12/28/00

We find that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena failed to devise an efficient recording and filing system to enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition. This is his duty on which he failed.^[53]

Memorandum of the Court Administrator

On November 14, 2001, the Court required the Office of the Court Administrator^[54] to update its report.^[55]

On November 16, 2001, OCA Consultant Pedro A. Ramirez (Justice, Court of Appeals, Retired) submitted a "compliance report" with the Court's order. The compliance report shows that to this day, several cases that were reported pending by the Sandiganbayan on September 26, 2000, and likewise reported undecided by the OCA on January 26, 2001, have not been decided/resolved. We quote the compliance report:^[56]

First Division

Case Number	Date Submitted	Ponente Assigned	Reason for Not Deciding Case
194.   11999	12/10/90	Garchitorena	Under study, submitted before the reorganization
195.   12102	7/1/91	Garchitorena	Under study, submitted before the reorganization
196.   12127	2/12/90	Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
197.   12139	6/10/92	Castaneda*	Under study submitted before the reorganization
198.   12289	8/28/91	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
199.   12305-06	2/7/91	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
200.   13015	3/2/92	Garchitorena	Under study submitted before the reorganization
201.   13171	11/16/95	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
202.   13353	10/6/90	Garchitorena	Under study submitted before the reorganization
203.   13521	12/12/99	Garchitorena	Under study submitted before the reorganization
204.   13563	7/4/95	Garchitorena	Under study submitted before the reorganization
205.   13618	7/14/91	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
206.   13668	6/13/93	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
207.   13672	3/5/92	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
208.   13679-80	8/6/91	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
209.   13689-95	11/14/92	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
210.   13708	3/9/92	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
211.   13747-48	8/19/94	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
212.   13971	3/12/95	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
213.   14223	3/7/97	Death of accused is unconfirmed and dismissal of the case was held in abeyance. (Ong, J.)*
214.   14227	9/5/92	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
215.   14230	11/30/90	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
216.   14287	7/3/94	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
217.   14324	11/5/95	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
218.   14375	5/22/95	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
219.   14411	1/24/93	Garchitorena	Under study submitted before the reorganization
220.   14975	9/29/94	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
221.   14986	12/11/92	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
222.   15006	11/19/94	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
223.   15168	3/25/93	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
224.   15301	3/16/94	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
225.   16239	12/26/91	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
226.   16516	11/19/91	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
227.   16583-85	8/13/96	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
228.   16695	8/15/96	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
229.   16854	1/15/96	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
230.   16927-28	12/17/95	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
231.   16946	8/4/93	Castaneda	Under study submitted before the reorganization
232.   17001	9/4/97	Not yet assigned
233.   17278	5/2/94	Death of accused is unconfirmed and dismissal of the case was held in abeyance. (Ong, J.)
234.   17600	8/30/97	Not yet assigned
235.   17601	8/30/97	Not yet assigned
236.   17759	6/25/96	Ong	Decided and set for promulgation
237.   17901	5/28/98	Not yet assigned
238.   18696	8/9/98	Not yet assigned
239.   18857	10/21/98	Not yet assigned
240.   19059-63	2/11/99	Not yet assigned
241.   19534-35	9/2/98	Not yet assigned
242.   19708	8/25/98	Not yet assigned
243.   19773-79	5/21/99	Not yet assigned
244.   20688	7/9/98	Not yet assigned
245.   20948	10/9/97	Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
246.   20949	10/9/97	Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
247.   21020	7/4/95	Ong	Set for Promulgation on November 27, 2001
248.   22145	7/7/99	Not yet assigned
249.   22195-96	6/14/96	Castaneda	Under study, submitted before the reorganization
250.   22832	10/21/98	Not yet assigned
251.   23042	8/27/98	Not yet assigned
252.   23146	11/13/00	Not yet assigned
253.   23273	4/19/99	Not yet assigned
254.   23323	3/23/00	Not yet assigned
255.   23324	8/3/97	Not yet assigned
256.   23336	9/4/97	Not yet assigned
257.   23374	12/17/98	Not yet assigned
258.   23418-23	10/15/99	Not yet assigned
259.   23509	9/5/98	Not yet assigned
260.   23511	4/23/99	Not yet assigned
261.   23540	10/15/99	Not yet assigned
262.   24042-98	4/28/99	Ong	Set for Promulgation on November 27, 2001
263.   24150	1/31/00	Not yet assigned
264.   24236-37	2/14/00	Not yet assigned
265.   24281	5/9/99	Not yet assigned
266.   24319-29	11/4/99	Not yet assigned
267.   24319-29	11/4/99	Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
268.   24355	2/18/99	Not yet assigned
269.   24395	7/13/99	Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
270.   24402	6/17/99	Not yet assigned
271.   24433-34	9/6/99	Not yet assigned
272.   24531-34	12/16/99	Not yet assigned
273.   24631	8/9/99	Not yet assigned
274.   24768	7/8/00	Not yet assigned
275.   6672	7/11/90	Garchitorena	Under Study, before the reorganization
276.   9977	5/10/94	Garchitorena	Under Study, before the reorganization
277.   0112	1/11/92	Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
278.   0116	10/16/91	Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report
279.   0156	3/14/97	Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report

Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Garchitorena, PJ.	9
Cases Assigned to Castaneda, J.	42
Cases Assigned to Ong, J.	5
Cases not yet assigned	73
Cases not accounted for or reported	9
	-------
Total	138

Case Number	Date Submitted	Ponente Assigned	Reason for Not Deciding Case
63. 19542	4/16/99	For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN
64. 13827-32	8/30/00	Victorino	For promulgation
65. 18965	11/30/00	For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN

Third Division

Case Number	Date Submitted	Ponente Assigned	Reason for Not Deciding Case
47. SCA/005	12/18/00	Ilarde	--
48. A/R 029	10/2/00	Illarde
49. 487-491	4/8/98	With pending demurrer to evidence, submitted, 01/26/01 re Submitted, 03/20/01
50. 11794	6/10/00	De Castro	--
51. 17532	12/11/00	Ilarde	--
52. 18867-72	10/5/00	Pending trial per order dated 08/17/00
53. 19182	4/6/00	Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97
54. 19563	4/6/00	No Assignment	--
55. 19574	4/6/00	No Assignment	--
56. 19622-24	4/6/00	Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97
57. 20053-54	4/6/00	Not with the 3rd Division
58. 20271	12/18/00	Illarde	--
59. 22143	12/18/00	De Castro	--
60. 23014	9/23/00	De Castro	--
61. 23699-701	3/22/00	Ilarde	--
62. 23802-03	9/10/00	No Assignment	--
63. 24153	12/18/00	No Assignment	--
64. 24697-98	9/10/00	Ilarde	--
65. 24741	12/7/00	De Castro	--
66. 24779-81	10/28/00	No Assignment	--
67. 25657	5/5/00	With Defense pending motion for the re-examination of the Information and the parties' affidavits, etc. Order dated 08/31/01

Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Illarde, J.	9
Cases Assigned to De Castro, J.	4
Cases not yet assigned	8
Others	18
	-------
Total	39

Case Number	Date Submitted	Ponente Assigned	Reason for Not Deciding Case
71. 11960	09/21/98	Draft of decision penned by J. Nario in view of the dissenting opinion of one Justice was referred to a Division of five (5) composed of Nario, Palattao, Ferrer, Badoy, Jr. and De Castro, JJ.
72. 16809	03/26/00	Palattao	--
73. 23058-62	04/27/00	Nario	--
74. 25389	09/26/00	Nario	--

Fifth Division

Case Number	Date Submitted	Ponente Assigned	Reason for Not Deciding Case
32. 14397	1/4/99	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
33. 16672	2/13/00	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
34. 17030	2/19/98	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
35. 18478	8/21/00	Estrada	Inherited case/lack of personnel
36. 18684	5/29/98	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
37. 18880	12/6/00	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
38. 19510-12	12/4/00	Estrada	Inherited case/lack of personnel
39. 19593	6/5/98	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
40. 19614	7/31/98	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
41. 20194	1/8/01	Chico-Nazario	Complicated Issues
42. 20427	11/3/99	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
43. 20648-49	1/4/98	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
44. 20694	3/11/98	Estrada	Inherited case/lack of personnel
45. 22926	11/13/00	No report, Unaccounted for by the Sandiganbayan report
46. 23066	8/16/99	Badoy, Jr.	Inherited case/lack of personnel
47. 24155	11/30/00	Estrada	Not yet due
48. 24379	8/27/00	Estrada	Draft decision released 7/31/01

Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Badoy, J.***	11
Cases Assigned to Estrada, J.	7
Cases Assigned to Chico-Nazario, J.	1
No report/Unaccounted For	1
	-------
Total	20

3. Applicability of SC Adm. Circular No. 10-94.-- Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan.

Administrative Circular 10-94^[57] directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their dockets. The docket inventory procedure is as follows:^[58]

"a. Every trial judge shall submit not later than the last week of February and the last week of August of each year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate on a horizontal column the following data:

"1. Title of the case

"2. Date of Filing

"3. Date arraignment in criminal cases of Pre-trial in civil cases and

"4. Date of initial trial

"5. Date of last hearing

"6. Date submitted for Decision

"b. The tabulation shall end with a certification by the trial judge that he/she has personally undertaken an inventory of the pending cases in his/her court; that he/she has examined each case record and initialled the last page thereof. The judge shall indicate in his/her certification the date when inventory was conducted.

"c. The Tabulation and Certification shall be in the following form.

Docket Inventory for the Period
January __ to June ___, ___/July
To December ___, ___
   (Indicate Period)

Court and Station ________
Presiding Judge    ________

Title of Case	Date Filed	Pretrial/ Arraignment	Initial Hearing	Date of Last Hearing	Date submitted for Decision

"CERTIFICATION:

"I hereby certify that on (Date/Dates___), I personally conducted a physical inventory of pending cases in the docket of this court, that I personally examined the records of each case and initialled the last page thereof, and I certify that the results of the inventory are correctly reflected in the above tabulation.

_____________________
Presiding Judge"

Given the rationale behind the Administrative Circular, we hold that it is applicable to the Sandiganbayan with respect to cases within its original and appellate jurisdiction.

Mora Decidendi

We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000:^[59]

"This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of the bench.^[60] Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency^[61] that warrants disciplinary sanction, including fine,^[62] suspension^[63] and even dismissal.^[64] The rule particularly applies to justices of the Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it into disrepute.^[65] Delays cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the nation's determination to succeed in its war against graft (underscoring ours)."

In Yuchengco v. Republic,^[66] we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice. We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the nation's anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for graft, uphold the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases and avert the precipitate loss of their rights.

Practice of Unloading Cases

According to the memorandum submitted by the OCA, there is a practice in the first and third divisions of the Sandiganbayan of unloading cases to other divisions despite the fact that these cases have been submitted for decision before them. We cite relevant portions of the memorandum:^[67]

Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fourth Division
 

Case No.	Title of the Case	Division where case originated	Date Submitted for Decision
1) 17015	PP vs. Raul Zapatos	3rd	06/06/94
2) 17016	PP vs. Raul Zapatos	3rd	06/06/94
3) 14380	PP vs. Francisco Ramoran	3rd	02/14/95
4) 18005	PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac	3rd	05/07/96
5) 18006	PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac	3rd	05/07/96
6) 13593	PP vs. Dominador Meninguito	3rd	05/30/96
7) 13594	PP vs. Dominador Meninguito	3rd	05/30/96
8) 19567	PP vs. Dominador Meninguito	3rd	05/30/96
9) 17140	PP vs. Jose Café, et. al.	3rd	06/13/96
10) 17141	PP vs. Jose Café, et. al.	3rd	06/13/96
11) 20064	PP vs. Ben dela Pena	3rd	07/01/96
12) 21131	PP vs. Rufino Mamanguin	3rd	08/05/96
13) 17209	PP vs. Isidro Catapang	3rd	12/27/96
14) 13757	PP vs. Catalino Daganzo	3rd	03/21/97
15) 18257	PP vs. Zenaida Sazon	1st	09/22/97

Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fifth Division
 

Case Number	Date Submitted
1. 10264	12/22/90
2. 13344	5/14/97
3. 16223	4/25/94
4. 16574	5/30/95
5. 16760	5/25/95
6. 16810	1/23/96
7. 17018	7/20/94
8. 17055	7/5/95
9. 17139	4/24/94
10. 17162	2/23/95
11. 17193	3/8/94
12. 17426	2/12/94
13. 17480	3/22/94
14. 17538	11/20/95
15. 17567	2/24/93
16. 17598	8/3/94
17. 17617	3/28/96
18. 17618	4/6/95
19. 17619	4/6/95
20. 17640	6/12/95
21. 17661	12/15/94
22. 17666	8/25/97
23. 17884	11/12/95
24. 17902	4/16/95
25. 18008	9/15/97
26. 18423	1/15/96
27. 18687	9/30/94
28. 18759	10/12/95
29. 18785	7/13/95
30. 18932	4/20/97
31. 18988	10/25/95
32. 18999	12/21/95
33. 19039	5/6/95
34. 19378	4/17/96
35. 19379	4/17/96
36. 19679	10/5/95
37. 19712	2/18/95
38. 19907	6/22/95
39. 20487	12/14/96
40. 20624	7/15/95
41. 23427	7/25/97

We suggest a review of the practice of unloading cases that greatly contributes to the backlog of undecided cases. When a case has been heard and tried before a division of the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same division and no other must decide it as far as practicable.

We further note that several cases which were earlier reported as undecided by the Sandiganbayan and the OCA have been decided since the reports of September 26, 2000 and January 26, 2001. Nonetheless, the delay in deciding these cases is patent and merits reprobation. According to the compliance report submitted by the OCA on November 16, 2001, there are several cases decided way beyond the reglementary period prescribed by law, even assuming without granting, a reglementary period of twelve months from the time a case is submitted for decision.^[68]

In a case brought before this Court, Presiding Justice Garchitorena admitted fault and that the fault is exclusively his own, in failing to decide the case, though submitted for decision as early as June 20, 1990.^[69] This case was not even included among pending cases in the Sandiganbayan report of September 26, 2000.

The following cases were decided, though beyond the prescribed period:

                                        First Division

Case Number	Submitted for Decision	Date of Promulgation	Ponente
14195	March 31, 1997	November 10, 2000	Ong
21608	March 31, 1997	November 15, 2000	Ong
20588	February 14, 1998	January 12, 2001	Ong
19651	November 15, 1996	January 26, 2001	Ong
17670	November 25, 1994	January 26, 2001	Ong
17447-48	September 6, 1994	February 22, 2001	Ong
18283	February 21, 1995	February 23, 2001	Ong
17514	August 19, 1994	April 24, 2001	Ong

                                        Second Division

Case Number	Submitted for Decision	Date of Promulgation	Ponente
18403-18417	December 4, 1998	February 2, 2001	Victorino
18435	August 11, 2000	March 26, 2001	Victorino
18786	November 28, 2000	March 28, 2001	Legaspi
19004	September 10, 1996	March 16, 2001	Victorino
19692-19707	August 27, 2000	February 26, 2001	Sandoval
19848	March 28, 1996	January 29, 2001	Victorino
20483-20484	July 26, 1995	April 6, 2001	Victorino
20660	December 20, 2000	August 2, 2001	Legaspi
20765	August 30, 1996	February 23, 2001	Victorino
20816	March 11, 1998	January 25, 2001	Victorino
21097	December 13, 2000	June 15, 2001	Victorino
22858	August 11, 2000	January 31, 2001	Victorino
22934	October 14, 2000	February 15, 2001	Sandoval
22976	May 4, 1999	March 1, 2001	Sandoval
23111	November 27, 2000	March 14, 2001	Sandoval
23262	October 11, 2000	May 16, 2001	Victorino
23338	December 2, 1999	December 14, 2000	Sandoval
23529-23530	October 23, 2000	March 28, 2001	Victorino
24407-24408	August 11, 2000	January 24, 2001	Legaspi
24994	August 17, 2000	May 30, 2001	Sandoval
AR#035	December 9, 2000	August 28, 2001	Legaspi

                                        Third Division

Case Number	Submitted for Decision	Date of Promulgation	Ponente
A/R 016	November 16, 1999	January 26, 2001	Ilarde
13861-13863	April 6, 2000	December 22, 2000	Del Rosario
13889	September 30, 1999	May 10, 2001	Ilarde
16756	August 28, 1999	December 11, 2000	Del Rosario
23522	July 6, 2000	January 12, 2001	Del Rosario

                                        Fourth Division

Case Number	Submitted for Decision	Date of Promulgation	Ponente
17664	August 31, 1999	June 1, 2000	Pallatao
17016	June 6, 1994	March 27, 2001	Ferrer
17140-41	June 13, 1996	February 6, 2001	Nario
17209	December 27, 1996	April 30, 2001	Ferrer
17805-09; 17814	February 15, 2000	October 10, 2001	Palattao
17856	April 2, 2000	June 25, 2001	Palattao
18005-06	May 7, 1996	May 18, 2001	Ferrer
18257	September 22, 1997	July 26, 2001	Ferrer
18894-96	November 17, 2000	March 20, 2001	Palattao
18900	October 28, 2000	March 23, 2001	Ferrer
18935-37	June 16, 2000	January 18, 2001	Palattao
19567	May 21, 1996	January 15, 2001	Ferrer
20338	May 19, 1997	February 9, 2001	Ferrer
20469	July 7, 2000	June 25, 2001	Palattao
13036-37	February 22, 1999	February 28, 2001	Ferrer
13593-94	May 21, 1996	January 15, 2001	Ferrer
20470-76	July 7, 2000	June 25, 2001	Palattao
20664	June 29, 1996	February 20, 2001	Ferrer
20685	February 18, 2000	March 2, 2001	Palattao
20828	September 13, 2000	October 8, 2001	Palattao
21093	August 7, 1999	January 15, 2001	Palattao
21131	August 4, 1996	February 13, 2001	Ferrer
21778-80	September 29, 1997	June 21, 2001	Ferrer
22891-92	March 2, 2000	December 13, 2000	Ferrer
23007	May 24, 1999	March 14, 2000	Ferrer
13757	March 21, 1997	July 2, 2001	Ferrer
14380	February 14, 1995	April 23, 2001	Ferrer
17015	June 6, 1994	March 27, 2001	Ferrer
23366	November 26, 1999	October 29, 2001	Ferrer
23415	May 25, 2000	May 28, 2001	Palattao
23534	December 15, 2000	February 28, 2001	Palattao
23708	September 27, 2000	September 10, 2001	Nario
24464-65	July 26, 2000	June 26, 2001	Nario
24742	October 10, 2000	March 22, 2001	Ferrer
24841-42	May 9, 2000	March 7, 2001	Ferrer
25198	July 12, 2000	February 6, 2001	Nario
25543	December 27, 2000	February 26, 2001	Palattao
25658	July 28, 2000	July 20, 2001	Palattao
24447-48	September 18, 2000	December 7, 2001	Palattao

Case Number	Submitted for Decision	Date of Promulgation	Ponente
17826-17827	December 9, 2000	March 28, 2001	Chico-Nazario
19668	July 26, 1998	February 9, 2001	Badoy, Jr.
21882	August 12, 2000	July 25, 2001	Chico- Nazario
22184	December 16, 2000	May 21, 2001	Chico- Nazario
22873	December 4, 1999	May 31, 2001	Chico- Nazario
23319	September 30, 2000	April 23, 2001	Chico- Nazario
23450	September 16, 2000	March 16, 2001	Chico- Nazario
23515	January 29, 2000	May 28, 2001	Cortez-Estrada
24759	May 5, 2000	July 10, 2001	Cortez-Estrada
24858	December 28, 2000	May 31, 2001	Chico-Nazario

At this juncture, the Court cites the case of Canson v. Garchitorena.^[70] In that case, we admonished respondent Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena. General Jewel F. Canson, Police Chief Superintendent, National Capital Region Command Director, complained of deliberate delayed action of the Presiding Justice on the transfer of Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, depriving complainant of his right to a just and speedy trial. Due to a finding of lack of bad faith on the part of respondent justice, we issued only a warning. However, the dispositive portion of the decision cautioned respondent justice that "a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely."^[71]

Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena sits as the Chairman, First Division, with a backlog of cases pending decision. At least seventy-three cases have been unassigned for the writing of the extended opinion, though submitted for decision. It may be the thinking of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan that an unassigned case is not counted in its backlog of undecided cases. This is not correct. It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen of divisions to assign the ponente as soon as the case is declared submitted for decision, if not earlier. If he fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed to be the ponente.

The Constitution provides that a case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.^[72] In Administrative Circular No. 28, dated July 3, 1989, the Supreme Court provided that "A case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination of the trial. The ninety (90) days period for deciding the case shall commence to run from submission of the case for decision without memoranda; in case the court requires or allows its filing, the case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety (90) days from the completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same."^[73] The designation of a ponente to a case is not a difficult administrative task.

Administrative sanctions must be imposed. "Mora reprobatur in lege."^[74] Again, we reiterate the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities.^[75] In this area, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as the ponente assigned to the cases submitted for decision/resolution long ago, some as far back as more than ten (10) years ago, has been remiss constituting gross neglect of duty and inefficiency.^[76] As we said in Canson,^[77] unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into disrepute, eroding the public faith and confidence in the judiciary.^[78]

Consequently, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena should be relieved of all trial and administrative work as Presiding Justice and as Chairman, First Division so that he can devote himself full time to decision-making until his backlog is cleared. He shall finish this assignment not later than six (6) months from the promulgation of this resolution.

We have, in cases where trial court judges failed to decide even a single case within the ninety (90) day period, imposed a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to the equivalent of their one month's salary.^[79] According to the report of the Sandiganbayan, as of September 26, 2000, there were three hundred forty one (341) cases submitted for decision before its first division headed by the Presiding Justice. In the memorandum of the OCA, there were one hundred ninety eight (198) cases reported submitted for decision before the First Division.^[80] Even in the updated report, there are one hundred thirty eight (138) cases still undecided in the First Division.

In fact, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that he has a backlog.^[81] He claimed that one (1) case alone comprises fifty percent (50%) of the backlog. We find this claim exaggerated. We cannot accept that a backlog of three hundred forty one (341) cases in the First Division could be eliminated by the resolution of a single consolidated case of one hundred fifty six (156) counts. A consolidated case is considered only as one case. The cases referred to were consolidated as Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, decided on December 8, 2000. What about the one hundred eighty five (185) cases that unfortunately remained undecided to this date? Worse, the motion for reconsideration of the decision in said cases, submitted as of January 11, 2001, has not been resolved to this date.^[82] The First Division has only thirty (30) days from submission to resolve the same. It is now ten (10) months from submission. The expediente and the motion were transmitted to the ponente, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, on that date, but to this day the case remains unresolved.^[83] Unfortunately, even other divisions of the Sandiganbayan may be following his example.^[84]

In the first report of the Court Administrator, he indicated a total of one hundred ninety five (195) criminal cases and three (3) civil cases, or a total of one hundred ninety eight (198) cases submitted for decision as of December 21, 2000.^[85] Almost a year later, as of November 16, 2001, there are still one hundred thirty eight (138) cases undecided submitted long ago. For almost one year, not one case was decided/resolved by the Presiding Justice himself.^[86]

Directive

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:

(1) To IMPOSE on Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty.

(2) Effective December 1, 2001, to RELIEVE Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena of his powers, functions and duties as the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, and from presiding over the trial of cases as a justice and Chairman, First Division, so that he may DEVOTE himself exclusively to DECISION WRITING, until the backlog of cases assigned to him as well as cases not assigned to any ponente, of which he shall be deemed the ponente in the First Division, are finally decided. There shall be no unloading of cases to other divisions, or to the First Division inter se.

In the interim, Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, as the most senior associate justice, shall TAKE OVER and exercise the powers, functions, and duties of the office of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, until further orders from this Court.

(3) To DIRECT Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the associate justices of the Sandiganbayan to decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for decision as of this date, within three (3) months from their submission, and to resolve motions for new trial or reconsiderations and petitions for review within thirty (30) days from their submission. With respect to the backlog of cases, as hereinabove enumerated, the Sandiganbayan shall decide/resolve all pending cases including incidents therein within six (6) months from notice of this resolution.

(4) To ORDER the Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Circular 10-94, effective immediately.

(5) To DIRECT the Sandiganbayan en banc to adopt not later than December 31, 2001 internal rules to govern the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of justices among them and other matters leading to the internal operation of the court, and thereafter to submit the said internal rules to the Supreme Court for its approval.^[87]

This directive is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur.
De Leon, Jr., J., see dissenting and concurring opinion.
Buena, J., on official leave.

---

^[1] Dated July 29, 2000, done in Los Baños, Laguna. Signed by Arthur D. Lim (National President), and the following Governors: Carmencito P. Caingat (Central Luzon), Jose P. Icaonapo, Jr. (Greater Manila), Teresita Infatado-Gines (Southern Luzon), Serafin P. Rivera (Bicolandia), Celestino B. Sabate (Eastern Visayas), David A. Ponce de Leon (Western Visayas), Paulino R. Ersando (Western Mindanao). The following did not take any part in the Resolution: Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Executive Vice President) was on study leave, and Nicanor A. Magno (Governor for Eastern Mindanao) was on sick leave.

^[2] Rollo, p. 2.

^[3] Rollo, pp. 3-4.

^[4] Rollo, p. 5.

^[5] Dated September 26, 2000, Rollo, pp. 6-18.

^[6] Rollo, p. 6.

^[7] As of September 15, 2000, Rollo, pp. 17-18.

^[8] Resolution of the Court En Banc dated October 10, 2000, Rollo, pp. 19-20.

^[9] Rollo, pp. 30-43.

^[10] Article VIII, Section 15 (1), Constitution.

^[11] Reply, Rollo, pp. 45-46.

^[12] Rollo, p. 52.

^[13] First Division composed of Francis E. Garchitorena (Presiding Justice and Chairman); Catalino R. Castañeda, Jr. (Associate Justice) and Gregory S. Ong (Associate Justice).

^[14] Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving 156 cases.

^[15] Rollo, p. 56.

^[16] Rollo, pp. 61-101. The memorandum was a report on the judicial audit and physical inventory of pending cases before the five (5) Divisions of the Sandiganbayan conducted by the Court Administrator's Judicial Audit Team. The team was composed of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, together with Consultants Narciso T. Atienza, Conrado M. Molina, Romulo S. Quimbo, Pedro A. Ramirez, and staff. The report was prepared from December 11 to 19, 2000.

^[17] Rollo, pp. 61-104, at p. 100.

^[18] Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001.

^[19] Memorandum to Chief Justice Davide dated January 26, 2001, Rollo, pp. 61-101, at p. 101.

^[20] Pursuant to Section 15 (1) Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.

^[21] Section 6, P.D. No. 1606, as amended; Section 3, Rule XVIII of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan.

^[22] Cited in Montes v. Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1627, April 17, 2001.

^[23] See 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court, pp. 7-8.

^[24] R.A. No. 8249 (An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan) classifies the Sandiganbayan as "[A] special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice ... x x x (Section 1)."

^[25] R. A. No. 8249, Section 2, empowers the Sandiganbayan to "hold sessions x x x for the trial and determination of cases filed with it."

^[26] R. A. No. 8249, Section 1.

^[27] P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, as amended.

^[28] R.A. No. 7975, Section 4, except to adopt internal rules governing the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of justices among them and other matters relating to the internal operations of the court which shall be enforced until repealed or modified by the Supreme Court.

^[29] Ibid.

^[30] Supra, Note 23, at p. 8.

^[31] Enumerated under Section 4 of R. A. No. 8249

^[32] Under R.A. No. 8249, Section 4, "The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided."

^[33] Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator, Rollo, pp. 137-147, at p. 147.

^[34] Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486, creating a special court to be known as the "Sandiganbayan."

^[35] R.A. No. 8249 is silent on this matter. Amendments are to be construed as if they are included in the original act (Camacho v. CIR, 80 Phil. 848 [1948]).

^[36] P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, provides, "The Sandiganbayan shall have the power to promulgate its own rules of procedure and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of Court shall govern its proceedings." However, R.A. No. 7975, Sec. 4, repealed this provision, approved March 30, 1995, effective May 6, 1995.

^[37] Rule XVIII, Section 3, The Sandiganbayan, Revised Rules of Procedure.

^[38] R.A. No. 7975, Section 1.

^[39] Cariño v. Ofilada, 217 SCRA 206 (1993).

^[40] Dacumos v. Sandiganbayan, 195 SCRA 833 (1991), discussing the power of a trial court.

^[41] 334 Phil. 369, 386 (1997).

^[42] 329 Phil. 300, 309-310 (1996).

^[43] All pending before the Sandiganbayan's First Division, of which Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena is the Chairman.

^[44] Compliance, Rollo, pp. 7-18.

^* Second Division composed of Edilberto G. Sandoval (Associate Justice and Chairman); Godofredo L. Legaspi (Associate Justice) and Raul V. Victorino (Associate Justice).

^** Third Division composed of Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. (Associate Justice and Chairman); Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (Associate Justice) and Ricardo M. Ilarde (Associate Justice, Retired November 27, 2001).

^*** Fourth Division composed of Narciso S. Nario (Associate Justice and Chairman); Rodolfo G. Palattao (Associate Justice) and Nicodemo T. Ferrer (Associate Justice).

^**** Fifth Division composed of Minita V. Chico-Nazario (Associate Justice and Chairman); Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada (Associate Justice) and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. (Associate Justice).

^[45] 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Annex "H", p. 258.

^[46] Dealing with a single delay in the municipal circuit trial court, Re: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).

^[47] See Comment of Presiding Justice, G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan.

^[48] Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving 156 cases.

^[49] Rollo, p. 56.

^[50] See Semestral Inventory of Pending Cases, for the period January to July, 2001, Sandiganbayan, First Division, dated August 24, 2001, submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator by Estella Teresita C. Rosete, Executive Clerk of Court, First Division, Sandiganbayan.

^[51] As of December 21, 2000.

^[52] Memorandum for Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104.

^[53] Cf. Re: Request of Judge Masamayor, RTC-Br. 52, Talibon, Bohol, For Extension of Time to Decide Civil Case No. 0020 and Criminal Case No. 98-384, 316 SCRA 219 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485 (1999).

^[54] In a Memorandum signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. addressed to Justice (Ret.) Pedro A. Ramirez, OCA Consultant.

^[55] Rollo, pp. 489-498.

^[56] Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 342-348

^* Justice Catalino R. Castaneda, Jr. joined the Sandiganbayan on September 24, 1997.

^* Justice Gregory S. Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 1998.

^** The Fourth and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created only on September 25, 1997.

^*** The case assignments of Justice Badoy, Jr. were all transferred to Justice Villaruz when Justice Badoy, Jr. transferred to the Third Division. The report of the Sandiganbayan with respect case assignments is dated September 30, 2001 (See Annex "E").

^[57] Dated June 29, 1994.

^[58] A(2) a.-c., Administrative Circular 10-94.

^[59] Resolution of the Court En Banc, Rollo, pp. 19-21, at p. 20.

^[60] Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).

^[61] Cueva v. Villanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).

^[62] Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-Lapu City, 352 Phil. 223, 232 (1998); Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., 347 Phil. 671, 674 (1997).

^[63] Bolalin v. Occiano, 334 Phil. 178 (1997).

^[64] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, 354 Phil. 8 (1998); Abarquez v. Rebosura, 349 Phil. 24, 38 (1998); Longboan v. Hon. Polig, 186 SCRA 557 (1990).

^[65] Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., supra, Note 62.

^[66] 333 SCRA 368, 387 (2000).

^[67] Memorandum to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104, at pp. 88, 93.

^[68] Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 349-353.

^[69] G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, filed on November 23, 2000.

^[70] 370 Phil. 287 (1999).

^[71] Supra, at p. 288.

^[72] Article VIII, Sec. 15 (2), Constitution.

^[73] Supreme Court Circulars, Orders and Resolutions, October 1999 ed., pp. 144-145.

^[74] Delay is reprobated in law (Black's Law Dictionary, 4^th Edition, 1951, West Publishing Co., p. 1160.

^[75] Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).

^[76] Sabado v. Cajigal, 219 SCRA 800 (1993); Casia v. Gestopa, Jr., 371 Phil. 131 (1999); Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Brs. 29, 56 and 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, 316 SCRA 272 (1999); Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr., 365 Phil. 492 (1999); Re: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 68, Camiling, Tarlac, 364 Phil. 530 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485 (1999); Louis Viutton S. A. v. Villanueva, 216 SCRA 121 (1992); Imposed in a case where there was failure to decide a case despite the lapse of years from its submission (Lambino v. de Vera, 341 Phil. 62, 67 (1997).

^[77] Supra, Note 61, at p. 303-304.

^[78] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).

^[79] Supra, Note 78.

^[80] As of December 21, 2000.

^[81] Supra, Note 14, Rollo, p. 56.

^[82] As of November 16, 2001. See Compliance Report, dated November 16, 2001, of Justice Ramirez.

^[83] Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at p. 354.

^[84] According to the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division Clerk of Court, a motion for reconsideration in the case of People v. Bienvenido Tan (Crim. Case No. 20685) submitted on May 4, 2001, has also remained unresolved. Another instance of violation of the thirty day reglementary period for resolving motions for reconsideration.

^[85] Supra, pp. 17-18 of this resolution.

^[86] On December 08, 2000, Presiding Justice Garchitorena decided a single consolidated case of 156 components, Crim. Cases Nos. 9812 to 9967, for estafa through falsification of public documents.

^[87] R. A. No. 7975, Section 4.

---

DE LEON, J.:

I respectfully dissent from the resolution of Mr. Justice Bernardo P. Pardo insofar as it declares and rules that the judgment of any division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months, and not within twelve (12) months, from the date the case was submitted for decision.

The resolution cites Section 6 of P.D. No. 1606 which requires that the judgment of the Sandiganbayan "shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision". The said provision was apparently adopted by the Sandiganbayan in Section 3 Rule XVIII of its Revised Rules of Procedure which was issued pursuant to P.D. No. 1606. The resolution also cites Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94, dated June 25, 1994 which is addressed "To: All Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Courts, Branch Clerks of Courts but not to Sandiganbayan Justices or the Clerk of Court and Division Clerk of Courts of the Sandiganbayan.

Section 15 (1) and (2) Article VII of the 1997 Constitution, however, provides that:

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.

(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.

xxx   xxx   xxx

The Supreme Court in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not reduced the 12-month period mentioned in the above-quoted constitutional provision insofar as the Sandiganbayan, a collegiate court, is concerned. It is basic that in case of conflict between a constitutional provision on one hand and a statute or an internal rule of procedure of a court on the other, the former, being a part of the fundamental law of the land, must prevail. Also pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8245 (approved on February 5, 1997) the Sandiganbayan has also exclusive appellate jurisdiction "over final judgments, resolutions or orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided."

In this connection, be it noted that section 1 of R.A. No. 8249 further amending P.D. No. 1606, as amended, provides that:

Section 1. Sandiganbayan; Composition; Qualification; Tenure; Removal and Compensation - A special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, to be known as the Sandiganbayan is hereby created composed of a presiding justice and fourteen associate justices who shall be appointed by the President.

Incidentally, per the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan, each division is composed of three (3) justices whose unanimous vote is required to render a decision, resolution or order. In the event there is a dissent, a special division is formed whereby two (2) justices who shall be chosen by raffle and added to the division concerned, in which event, the majority rule shall prevail. For that reason and considering also that appeals from the decisions of the Sandiganbayan are to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan as a collegiate trial court, is significantly different from the one-man regional trial court.

Subject to the foregoing observations and partial dissent, I concur with the rest of the resolution.