EN BANC
[ A.M. NO. MTJ-06-1661 (FORMERLY A.M. NO. 05-9-250-MCTC), January 25, 2007 ]OCA v. RAMON R. LEGASPI +
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. RAMON R. LEGASPI, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, 3RD MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, KINOGUITAN-SUGBONGCOGON, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
OCA v. RAMON R. LEGASPI +
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. RAMON R. LEGASPI, JR., PRESIDING JUDGE, 3RD MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, KINOGUITAN-SUGBONGCOGON, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, RESPONDENT.
DECISION
PER CURIAM:
Before us is an administrative complaint for gross inefficiency or gross neglect of duty, dereliction of duty and incompetence against Judge Ramon R. Legaspi, Jr., presiding judge of the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of
Kinoguitan-Sugbongcogon, Misamis Oriental.
On October 1, 2002, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases in respondent's sala and the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Medina, Misamis Oriental, where respondent was also the Acting Presiding Judge.
The audit team found that as of audit date, the MCTC of Kinoguitan-Sugbongcogon had a total caseload of 256 cases consisting of 220 criminal cases and 25 civil cases, with the records of 11 cases missing. There were 51 criminal cases that had remained in the preliminary
examination stage despite the lapse of a considerable length of time; 39 criminal cases in the preliminary examination stage had been submitted for resolution but remained unresolved beyond the reglementary period; 14 criminal cases and 1 civil case had
pending incidents submitted for resolution but likewise remained unresolved within the reglementary period; and 15 criminal cases and 6 civil cases had not been acted upon for a considerable length of time after the last order or incident in the case. There also
had been no setting for a considerable length of time: in 8 criminal cases which were in the preliminary conference or pre-trial stage, in 17 criminal cases and 1 civil case which were at the trial stage, and in 4 criminal cases which were at the
arraignment stage. There likewise had been no action for a considerable length of time: in 9 criminal cases, where the parties failed to comply with the directives of the court, in 44 criminal cases, where warrants and alias warrants of arrest were issued, and in
3 criminal cases since the time of their filing. Lastly, there was 1 civil case which had remained undecided beyond the reglementary period.[1]
The audit team also found that Clerk of Court (COC) Glenda dela Victoria failed to discharge strictly her duties and functions to implement an efficient system of records management and supervision over court personnel. Specifically, the audit team found that the docket books
were not up-to-date; that the records of Criminal Cases Nos. 1893, 1898 and 2029 pending in another court were included in the inventory of the MCTC of Kinoguitan-Sugbongcogon; that 11 case records were missing; and that the daily time records of court personnel do not reflect
the correct time out in the afternoon. The audit team later found that COC dela Victoria was suffering from Parkinson's disease after observing that she had difficulty standing still, walking, writing and speaking.
Regarding the MTC of Medina, the team found that the court had a total caseload of 51 criminal cases. There was 1 criminal case which had not been resolved within the reglementary period and another one which was almost beyond it. Also, 3 criminal cases have not been acted upon
for a considerable length of time.
On January 8, 2003, the OCA issued a memorandum with the following directives:
(1) Hon Ramon R. Legaspi, Jr., is hereby DIRECTED to:Respondent's designation as Acting Presiding Judge of the MTC of Medina was also revoked by this Court to help him resolve his cases.
(A) EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice hereof his FAILURE to:(2) Hon. Ramon R. Legaspi, Jr., Presiding Judge and Clerk of Court Glenda F. dela Victoria, both of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Kinoguitan-Sugbon[g]cogon, Misamis Oriental, are DIRECTED to: (2-a) EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice why the case records of Criminal Cases Nos. 1898, 1893 and 2029, pending in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Salay-Binuangan, Misamis Oriental are in the possession of said Court and eleven (11) case records were not presented to the audit team; (2-b) RETURN the aforecited criminal cases to the court of origin; and (2-c) SUBMIT compliance therewith, both within ten (10) days from notice hereof;
(a-1) CONDUCT and RESOLVE the preliminary examination for a considerable length of time in the following criminal cases, to wit: 1573, 1592, 1607, 1609, 1706, 1700, 1672, 1749, 1775, 1820, 1831, 1833, 1789, 1840, 1849, 1860, 1885, 1884, 1892, 1890, 1949, 1959, 1986, 2057, 2118, 2122, 2123, 2155, 2177, 2179, 2181, 2187, 2185, 2186, 2207, 2206, 2214, 2228, 2237, 2221, 2250, 2253, 2252, 2248, 2171, 2255, 2257, 2261, 2266, 2267 and 2269;(B) to IMMEDIATELY TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION on: [the said cases]
(a-2) RESOLVE within the reglementary period the: (a-2.1) preliminary examination of the following criminal cases: 1597, 1612, 1659, 1728, 1767, 1776, 1779, 1973, 1800, 1838, 1845, 1847, 1878, 1896, 1900, 1899, 1907, 1910, 1918, 1919, 1945, 1952, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2021, 2092, 2119, 2126, 2176, 2180, 2193, 2194, 2218, 2223, 2258, 2265 and 2168; (a-2.2) pending incidents submitted for resolution in Criminal Cases Nos. 1180, 1614, 1661, 1663, 1738, 1768, 1823, 1888, 1937, 1989, 2002, 2065, 2096, and 2198 and Civil Case No. 223;
(a-3) SET and ACT for a considerable length of time after the last order/incident of the case in Criminal Cases Nos. 1632, 1702, 1703, 1705, 1735, 1761, 1806, 1987, 2094, 2117, 2152, 2104, 2233, 2259, and 2260 and in Civil Cases Nos. 217, 216, 218, 234, 207 and 204;
(a-4) SET for a considerable length of time for: (a-4.1) preliminary conference/pre trial Criminal Cases Nos. 1880, 2199, 2232, 2234, 2205, 2208, 2256 and 2217; (a-4.2) trial Criminal Cases Nos. 1678, 1692, 1895, 1742, 1333, 1338, 1334, 1337, 2151, 2146, 2161, 2215, 2240, 2188, 2133, 2007 and 1990 and Civil Case No. 219; (a-4.3) arraignment Criminal Cases Nos. 1430, 2064, 2076, and 2136;
(a-5) ACT on the: (a-5.1) failure of the parties to comply with the directive of the Court for a considerable length of time in Criminal Cases Nos. 1810, 1811, 1908, 1973, 2015, 2077, 2093, 2153, and 2254; (a-5.2) warrants and alias warrants of arrest issued by the Court for a considerable length of time in Criminal Cases Nos. 1416, 1449, 1645, 1746, 1815, 1731, 1977, 2019, 2025, 2058, 2142, 2132, 2165, 2139, 2191, 2213, 2211, 2242, 2241, 1724, 2249, and 2224; and Criminal Cases Nos. 1762, 1771, 1674, 1785, 1872, 1902, 1943, 1677, 1985, 1966, 2012, 2005, 2044, 2130, 2175, 2172, 2201, 2204, 2192, 2220, 2219, and 2231, respectively; and (a-5.3) complaint/s and affidavit/s filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 1873, 1905, and 2203; and
(a-6) DECIDE Civil Case No. 211 within the reglementary period;
x x x x.
(C) to DECIDE with DISPATCH Civil Case No. 211 which was submitted for decision on 01 July 1998 and SUBMIT copy of the decision within ten (10) days from promulgation thereof.
(3) Clerk of Court Glenda F. dela Victoria, same Court, is DIRECTED to: (3-a) TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION to make the personnel log book and the daily time records reflective of the correct and accurate time in and out of court personnel; and (3-b) REGULARLY UPDATE the entries in the docket books; and (3-c) SUBMIT: (3-c.1) compliance with this directive; and (3-c.2) herself for a medical examination to the Supreme Court Medical Services, Manila, to determine whether or not she is still capable of performing the functions of her office, both within thirty (30) days from notice hereof;
(4) Hon. Ramon R. Legaspi, Jr., as Acting Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Medina, Misamis Oriental is: (4-a) DIRECTED to: (4-a.1) EXPLAIN within ten (10) days from notice his failure to resolve the pending incident in Criminal Case No. 08-60-99 within the mandatory period and to RESOLVE the same within twenty (20) days from notice; (4-a.2) INFORM the Office of the Court Administrator, through the Court Management Office, within ten (10) days from notice, whether or not the pending incident in Criminal Case No. 03-36-02 was resolved within the reglementary period; and (4-a.3) IMMEDIATELY TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION on Criminal Cases Nos. 06-54-02, 10-36-01 and 08-61-02 which have not been acted upon nor further set in the calendar for a considerable length of time; and
(5) Hon. Ramon R. Legaspi, Jr., is DIRECTED to SUBMIT COMPLIANCE with all the above directives to this Office through the Court Management Office, by submitting copies of the decisions, resolutions and orders issued in the above-mentioned cases within ten (10) days from rendition thereof.[2]
On February 28, 2003, respondent asked for an extension of twenty days to comply with the directives.[3]
COC dela Victoria, for her part, sought to be excused from the directive to submit herself for medical examination in Manila. She denied that her disease had impaired her ability to perform in her job and added that she was in financial difficulty and could not afford the trip.[4]
The Court sent a medical team to Misamis Oriental, which examined COC dela Victoria along with several other court personnel on June 24 and July 29, 2003. Dr. Prudencio Banzon, Jr., Senior Chief Staff Officer, Medical and Dental Services, Supreme Court, reported that COC dela Victoria was suffering from "Organic Mental Syndrome, moderate in proportion, … permanent and irreversible." Her condition was progressively debilitating and rendered it physically and mentally difficult for her to perform her duties and responsibilities efficiently as clerk of court. Thus, upon Dr. Banzon's recommendation, the OCA advised COC dela Victoria to avail of disability retirement.[5]
COC dela Victoria complied fully with the directives to her in the January 8, 2003 memorandum, then filed her application for optional retirement on January 5, 2005.[6]
Meanwhile, respondent Judge Legaspi continually failed to make full compliance with the January 8, 2003 memorandum. The OCA again ordered him on October 17, 2003, to comply strictly with the directives within a non-extendible period of 15 days.[7] Respondent replied that he has already started sending the Court Management Office, OCA, copies of orders and resolutions issued in some of the cases mentioned in the memorandum. He also asked for an indefinite period of extension, alleging that it was impossible to comply fully with all the directives within the allotted time.[8]
The OCA noted that respondent's alleged partial compliance consisted merely of attaching copies of the orders and resolutions to his monthly reports without the required explanation as directed. Thus, the OCA once again ordered respondent to comply strictly with the January 8, 2003 memorandum, and to make his compliance in chronological order. In its memorandum dated December 16, 2003, the OCA gave respondent a non-extendible period of 30 days.[9] Respondent still failed to comply.
On November 9, 2004, the OCA conducted a follow-up audit in the 3rd MCTC of Kinoguitan-Sugbongcogon. The audit revealed that the revocation of respondent's designation as Acting Presiding Judge of the MTC of Medina and the lapse of more than two years from the time of the first audit made little difference in improving the case flow and resolution of cases in respondent's sala. As of audit date, the MCTC of Kinoguitan-Sugbongcogon had 228 pending cases, consisting of 194 criminal cases and 34 civil cases. The audit team reported that of the 194 criminal cases, 114 cases had no further setting for a considerable length of time, 5 cases had no setting at all from the time of their filing, 10 cases had unresolved motions or pending incidents submitted for resolution beyond the reglementary period, and 2 cases had not been decided despite the lapse of the reglementary period. The audit team also reported that of the 34 civil cases, 18 cases were without further setting or action and 2 cases were with unresolved motions beyond the reglementary period.
On February 1, 2005, the OCA issued a memorandum directing respondent to:
a. TAKE APPROPRIATE ACTION on the following criminal and civil cases wherein the court failed to take any action from the time of their filing and those cases without further setting or action for a considerable length of time: [Criminal Case Nos. 1597, 1873, 1823, 2203 and 1738, wherein the court failed to take any action from the time of their filing; and Criminal Case Nos. 1416, 1412, 1573, 1605, 1640, 1659, 1612, 1661, 1706, 1700, 1632, 1728, 1731, 1672, 1746, 1749, 1767, 1761, 1775, 1776, 1707, 1703, 1702, 1678, 1768, 1692, 1800, 1806, 1671, 1785, 1833, 1831, 1742, 1789, 1838, 1849, 1860, 1884, 1885, 1896, 1890, 1899, 1907, 1910, 1878, 1918, 1919, 1949, 1945, 1943, 1677, 1705, 1900, 1977, 1872, 2192, 1985, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 1966, 2015, 01-07-99, 2044, 2049, 1973, 2119, 2177, 2092, 2176, 2187, 2096, 2186, 2193, 2250, 2218, 2266, 1770, 2275, 03-0004, 2255, 03-0005, 03-0001, 2271, 03-0008, 2277, 2098, 03-0018, 03-0038, 03-0029, 2199, 2214, 03-0034, 03-0048, 03-0007, 03-0051, 1663, 03-0060, 04-0002, 03-0056, 03-0057, 03-0058, 03-0059, 03-0053, 03-0054, 03-0055, 2002, 03-0068, 04-0004, 04-0005, 04-0012, 04-0011, 2007; and in Civil Case Nos. SP Case No. 203, Brgy. Case 4, 204, 215, 216, 218, 217, 237, 234, 219, SP Civil Cases 03-01 and 03-02, 03-01, 243, 246, 247, 245, 244 which had no further setting for a considerable length of time.]Respondent again asked for an indefinite extension of time on May 13, 2005 and sent three letters dated August 22, November 30, and December 14, 2005, with attachments of additional judgments, decisions, resolutions and orders. Respondent, however, never fully complied. The OCA also noted that many of the attachments in the three letters pertained to cases not covered by the February 1, 2005 memorandum.[11]
b. RESOLVE with dispatch the pending incidents in the following criminal and civil cases submitted for resolution (which are already beyond the reglementary period to resolve) and furnish copies of the resolutions to the Court Management Office, Office of the Court Administrator, within ten (10) days from resolution thereof: [Criminal Case Nos. 1614, 1735, 2254, 2133, 1888, 2153, 2141, 2140, 2188, 2208; Civil Case Nos. Election Case I-S 2002, and 224]
c. DECIDE with dispatch the following criminal and civil cases submitted for decision which are already beyond the reglementary period and furnish copies of the decisions to the Court Management Office within ten (10) days from their promulgation: [Criminal Case Nos. 1818 and 1908].
d. IMMEDIATELY APPOINT an Officer-in-Charge who shall:
(1) APPRISE [him] from time to time of cases submitted for resolution/decision and those cases that require immediate action;
(2) ORDER and SUPERVISE the stitching of all the criminal and civil case records/folders in the court; and
(3) INFORM this Court whether the [moneys] collected were immediately deposited and postal money orders remitted to the Supreme Court, furnishing this Office documents to support compliance and to STRICTLY COMPLY with the provisions of Administrative Circular No. 3-2000 dated June 15, 2000; and
e. EXPLAIN [his] CONTINUED FAILURE to act on cases that require immediate action, to resolve incidents submitted for resolution, to decide cases submitted for decision and to fully comply with the directives of the Memorandum dated January 8, 2003 within fifteen (15) [days] from notice.[10]
On September 28, 2005, this Court treated the two audit reports as an administrative complaint against respondent for gross inefficiency or gross neglect of duty, dereliction of duty and incompetence, and ordered respondent to show cause within 30 days why he should not be dismissed from the service.[12] Respondent likewise failed to comply with this directive.
On April 27, 2006, the OCA recommended to the Court that respondent be dismissed from the service for insubordination, contumacy, gross inefficiency or gross neglect of duty, dereliction of duty and incompetence.
We find the recommendation well taken.
The Constitution mandates all cases be decided or resolved by lower courts within three months from submission.[13] The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously for the reason that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should likewise be careful, punctual and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.[14] Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of administrative sanction.[15]
In this case, respondent was clearly remiss in the performance of his judicial duties. The first audit revealed that excluding the 11 cases with missing records, only 10 of the 228 cases that were supposed to be in active files were moving in respondent's sala.[16] His inaction or failure to resolve the preliminary examinations and pending incidents submitted for resolution generally lasted more than five years for most of the cases reported by the audit team. In some instances, particularly in Criminal Cases Nos. 1597, 1612, 1659, 1728, 1767, and 1776, respondent even allowed more than ten years to pass without resolving the preliminary examination in said cases. He neglected for the same inordinate length of time the pending incidents submitted for resolution in Criminal Cases Nos. 1180, 1614, 1661, 1663, and 1738. Furthermore, in the MTC of Medina where he was Acting Presiding Judge, respondent failed to decide 1 criminal case within the reglementary period.
Respondent was instructed on January 8, 2003, to take appropriate action on 211 criminal cases and 9 civil cases. He was given more than two years grace period from the first audit on October 1, 2002, to act on, resolve and decide his cases. However, respondent failed to act on 147 of the 211 criminal cases and 8 of the 9 civil cases subject of the memorandum.[17] Thus, a follow-up audit was conducted in his sala on November 9, 2004, and a memorandum issued on February 1, 2005, directing him to take appropriate action in his cases. Again, respondent failed to comply fully. Only 62 of the 151 cases subject of the February 1, 2005 memorandum were acted upon by him. The OCA reported on April 27, 2006, that as of said date, respondent left 89 cases to be acted upon, resolved or decided, including one case, Criminal Case No. 1818, which had been submitted for decision since 1996.[18]
Notwithstanding his failure to take appropriate action on his cases, however, respondent's certificates of service and his court's Monthly Report of Cases for the 3rd and 4th quarters of 2004 did not state the cases that have remained undecided beyond the reglementary period.[19]
Moreover, respondent refused to heed the directives of this Court and the OCA to explain his shortcomings. Respondent ought to know that a resolution of the Court is not to be construed as a mere request nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. At the core of the judge's esteemed position is obedience to the dictates of the law and justice. A judge must be first to exhibit respect for authority.[20]
Considering the gravity of respondent's omissions and the absence of any explanation whatsoever on his part, his dismissal from the service is not unwarranted.[21] The administration of justice demands that those who don judicial robes be able to comply fully and faithfully with the task set before them. In this regard, respondent miserably failed. The wheels of justice would hardly move if respondent is allowed to continue working in the judiciary. Thus, as recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator, after a thorough judicial audit, and considering the unrebutted audit reports on record, we are constrained to impose upon respondent the penalty of dismissal from the service.
WHEREFORE, Judge Ramon R. Legaspi, Jr., presiding judge of the 3rd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Kinoguitan-Sugbongcogon, Misamis Oriental, is found LIABLE for gross neglect of judicial duty, stark inefficiency in the performance of official functions, and manifest indifference to his responsibilities concerning speedy disposition of cases. He is ordered DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
SO ORDERED.
Puno C.J., Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, Carpio, Austria-Martinez, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Callejo, Sr., Azcuna, Tinga, Chico-Nazario, Garcia, and Velasco, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Rollo, pp. 28-35.
[2] Id. at 42-45.
[3] Id. at 50.
[4] Id. at 53.
[5] Id. at 65-67.
[6] Id. at 90-91.
[7] Id. at 70.
[8] Id. at 72.
[9] Id. at 74.
[10] Id. at 232-241.
[11] Id. at 482-488.
[12] Id. at 311.
[13] Art. VIII, Section 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 lower courts.
x x x x[14] Office of the Court Administrator v. Legaspi, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1893 (Formerly A.M. No. 04-10-598-RTC), March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 584, 606-607.
Office of the Court Administrator v. Gaudiel, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-04-1825 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 03-12-689-RTC), January 27, 2006, 480 SCRA 266, 272.
[15] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Br. 55, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, A.M. No. 05-4-213-RTC, March 6, 2006, 484 SCRA 99, 112.
[16] Rollo, pp. 29-36.
| CRIMINAL CASES STAGES OF CASES
|
TOTAL |
ACTIVE |
INACTIVE |
|
1. For Preliminary Examination
|
53 | 2 | 51 |
|
2. Submitted for resolution:
a. Preliminary examination b. Pending Incidents |
40 14 |
1 - |
39 14 |
|
3. No further setting/action
|
15 | - | 15 |
|
4. Preliminary conference/Pre-trial
|
10 |
2 |
8 |
|
5. For compliance
|
9 | 1 | 8 |
|
6. Warrants/alias warrants of arrest
|
44 |
- |
44 |
|
7. For trial
|
19 | 2 | 17 |
|
8. Arraignment
|
4 | - | 4 |
|
9. No initial Action Taken
|
3 | - | 3 |
|
TOTAL
|
211 | 8 | 203 |
| CIVIL CASES STAGES OF CASES
|
TOTAL |
ACTIVE |
INACTIVE |
|
1. No further action
|
6 | - | 6 |
|
2. For compliance
|
3 | - | 3 |
|
3. Pre-trial
|
5 | - | 5 |
|
4. Hearing
|
3 | 2 | 1 |
|
TOTAL
|
17 | 2 | 15 |
[17] Rollo, p. 5. Respondent failed to:
1. Conduct/resolve for a considerable length of time the preliminary examination in Criminal Case Nos. 1573, 1592, 1672, 1700, 1706, 1749, 1775, 1789, 1831, 1833, 1840, 1849, 1860, 1884, 1885, 1890, 1892, 1949, 1959, 2057, 2118, 2155, 2171, 2177, 2179, 2181, 2185,
2186, 2187, 2206, 2207, 2214, 2221, 2228, 2248, 2250, 2252, 2253, 2255, 2257, 2261, 2266, 2267 and 2269;
2. Resolve within the reglementary period the preliminary examination in Criminal Case Nos. 1597, 1612, 1659, 1728, 1767, 1776, 1779, 1800, 1838, 1847, 1878, 1896, 1899, 1900, 1907, 1910, 1918, 1919, 1945, 1952, 1973, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2092, 2119, 2126, 2168, 2176, 2193, 2194, 2218, 2223, 2258, and 2265; and the pending incidents submitted for resolution in Criminal Case Nos. 1180, 1614, 1661,1663, 1738, 1768, 1823, 1888, 2002, 2065, 2096, and 2198;
3. Set and act for a considerable length of time after the last order/incident in Criminal Case Nos. 1632, 1702, 1703, 1705, 1735, 1761, 1806, 2094, 2117, 2152, 2233, 2259, and 2260 and in Civil Case Nos. 217, 216, 218, 234, 207 and 204;
4. Set for a considerable length of time for preliminary conference/pre-trial Criminal Case Nos. 2199, 2205, 2208, 2232, 2234 and 2256; trial Criminal Case Nos. 1333, 1334, 1337, 1338, 1678, 1692, 1742, 2133, 2188 and 2240 and Civil Case No. 219; and for arraignment Criminal Case No. 1430; and
5. Act on the failure of the parties to comply with the directives of the Court in Criminal Case Nos. 1908, 1973, 2015, 2077, 2093, 2153, and 2254; on the warrants of arrest issued in Criminal Case Nos. 1416, 1731, 1746, 1977, 2191, and 2249; on the alias warrants of arrest issued in Criminal Case Nos. 1677, 1785, 1872, 1943, 1966, 1985, 2012, 2044, 2192, and 2231; and on the complaints/affidavits filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 1873, 1905 and 2203.
2. Resolve within the reglementary period the preliminary examination in Criminal Case Nos. 1597, 1612, 1659, 1728, 1767, 1776, 1779, 1800, 1838, 1847, 1878, 1896, 1899, 1900, 1907, 1910, 1918, 1919, 1945, 1952, 1973, 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, 2092, 2119, 2126, 2168, 2176, 2193, 2194, 2218, 2223, 2258, and 2265; and the pending incidents submitted for resolution in Criminal Case Nos. 1180, 1614, 1661,1663, 1738, 1768, 1823, 1888, 2002, 2065, 2096, and 2198;
3. Set and act for a considerable length of time after the last order/incident in Criminal Case Nos. 1632, 1702, 1703, 1705, 1735, 1761, 1806, 2094, 2117, 2152, 2233, 2259, and 2260 and in Civil Case Nos. 217, 216, 218, 234, 207 and 204;
4. Set for a considerable length of time for preliminary conference/pre-trial Criminal Case Nos. 2199, 2205, 2208, 2232, 2234 and 2256; trial Criminal Case Nos. 1333, 1334, 1337, 1338, 1678, 1692, 1742, 2133, 2188 and 2240 and Civil Case No. 219; and for arraignment Criminal Case No. 1430; and
5. Act on the failure of the parties to comply with the directives of the Court in Criminal Case Nos. 1908, 1973, 2015, 2077, 2093, 2153, and 2254; on the warrants of arrest issued in Criminal Case Nos. 1416, 1731, 1746, 1977, 2191, and 2249; on the alias warrants of arrest issued in Criminal Case Nos. 1677, 1785, 1872, 1943, 1966, 1985, 2012, 2044, 2192, and 2231; and on the complaints/affidavits filed in Criminal Cases Nos. 1873, 1905 and 2203.
[18] Id. at 488-496. Respondent left the following 89 cases to be acted upon, resolved or decided: Criminal Cases Nos. 1823, 2203, 1738, 1412, 1573, 1640, 1612, 1661, 1700, 1728, 1731, 1749, 1767, 1775, 1776, 1707, 1678, 1800, 1671, 1785, 1833, 1742, 1838, 1849, 1860, 1896, 1899, 1907, 1910, 1878, 1918, 1919, 1949, 1943, 1677, 1705, 1900, 1977, 1872, 1985, 1966, 2015, 2044, 2049, 1973, 2119, 2177, 2092, 2187, 2096, 2186, 2193, 2250, 2218, 2266, 1770, 03-0004, 03-0001, 03-0008, 2277, 2098, 2199, 03-0048, 1663, 04-0002, 2002, 03-0068, 1614, 1735, 2254, 2133, 1888, 2153, 2141, 2140, 2188, 2208, and Civil Cases Nos. SP Case No. 203, Brgy. Case 4, 204, 234, SP Civil Cases 03-01 and 03-02, 243, 245, 244, Election Case I-S 2002, 224, 1818.
[19] Id. at 9.
[20] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-Br. 47, Urdaneta City, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1968, January 31, 2006, 481 SCRA 76, 90.
[21] See Re: Report of Bernardo Ponferrada Re Judicial Audit Conducted in Br. 21, RTC, Cebu City -- Judge Genis B. Balbuena, Presiding, A.M. No. 00-4-08-SC, July 31, 2002, 385 SCRA 490, 498-499; Lambino v. De Vera, A.M. No. MTJ-94-1017, July 7, 1997, 275 SCRA 60, 64-65.