EN BANC
[ A.M. No. MTJ-03-1472 (Formerly A.M. No. 02-10-271-MTC), October 17, 2007 ]OCA v. JUDGE ZENAIDA L. GALVEZ +
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ZENAIDA L. GALVEZ AND CLERK OF COURT EUGENIO STO. TOMAS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CABUYAO, LAGUNA. RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
OCA v. JUDGE ZENAIDA L. GALVEZ +
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ZENAIDA L. GALVEZ AND CLERK OF COURT EUGENIO STO. TOMAS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, CABUYAO, LAGUNA. RESPONDENTS.
D E C I S I O N
GARCIA, J.:
An administrative complaint was filed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) against Judge Zenaida L. Galvez and Clerk of Court Eugenio Sto. Tomas, both of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cabuyao, Laguna on account of the adverse separate reports
of the OCA's Judicial and Audit teams dated July 5, 2002[1] and August 30, 2002,[2] respectively, about said court.
Acting on those reports, the OCA, in its Memorandum Report[3] dated October 11, 2002 to then Chief Justice Hilario C. Davide, Jr., recommended, among others, that: (1) Judge Galvez be directed to explain within ten days from notice why no administrative sanction should be imposed upon her for: (a) failure to decide some 31 criminal cases and 66 civil cases despite the lapse of the reglementary period therefor;[4] (b) failure to resolve motions/incidents in some criminal and civil cases within the prescribed period;[5] (c) failure to take further appropriate action for an unreasonable length of time on criminal cases under preliminary investigation which are cognizable by the Regional Trial Court as well as by the MTC, some of which have been pending for preliminary investigation for several years already;[6] (d) failure to set, for quite a long time, the cases for arraignment after the accused therein had posted their bailbonds;[7] and (e) failure to take initial action such as issuance of subpoenas and summonses;[8] and (2) Acting Presiding Judge Alden V. Cervantes (now herein made respondent) be directed to decide/resolve those cases, motions and incidents left undecided/unresolved by Judge Galvez and to make a physical inventory of all cases pending in the said court with the assistance of the OIC;
Pursuant to the OCA's aforesaid Memorandum Report, the Court issued a Resolution on January 22, 2003, directing Acting Presiding Judge Alden V. Cervantes to conduct, within 10 days from notice, a physical inventory of all cases filed and pending before the subject court, and to submit a report thereon within thirty (30) days from notice, thus:
Again, despite repeated directives, both verbal and written, Acting Presiding Judge Cervantes deferred the submission of the physical inventory of cases and the complete and accurate Monthly Reports of Cases and Docket Inventory Reports by semester, as directed in our Resolution.
In somewhat apathetic attitude, Judge Cervantes and the two other court personnel repeatedly attempted to submit, through their utility worker, incomplete and inaccurate Monthly Reports of Cases, the latest of which is a combined Docket Inventory Report for the period from January 1 to April 2004 instead of Docket Inventory Reports by semester. Not being in conformity with the prescribed forms, the reports were returned with reminders for Mrs. Manlegro and Mrs. Teñido to prepare their reports properly, accurately and in the prescribed forms before re-submitting the same to the Statistic Reports Division. Regrettably, the reminders fell on deaf ears.[10]
On February 8, 2005, the OCA submitted to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. a Memorandum regarding the non-submission of the monthly reports of cases and inventory reports of MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna. Acting on the said Memorandum, the Court, in a resolution dated May 3, 2005, resolved:
In due time, the OCA came out with its findings, recommending that Acting Presiding Judge Cervantes be charged with gross neglect of judicial duty, inefficiency in the performance of official functions and indifference to his responsibility concerning speedy disposition of cases. The pertinent portions of the OCA report are hereunder quoted, thus:
The Court accepts and adopts the foregoing evaluation, report and recommendation of the OCA, except as to the amount of the fine.
This Court has consistently impressed upon members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases not only deprives litigants of their right to the speedy disposition of their cases, but it also tarnishes the image of the judiciary. Failure to decide cases on time constitutes inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.[11]
No less than the Constitution requires lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters submitted for decision or resolution within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution.[12] Likewise, the Code of Judicial Conduct enunciates that judges should administer justice without delay, and directs every judge to dispose of the court's business promptly within the period prescribed by law and the rules.[13] A judge is mandated by the Constitution to render judgment and resolve pending incidents not more than 90 days from the time the case is submitted for resolution.
The report dated December 8, 2006 by the incumbent Clerk of Court Atty. Arlyn A. Hermano revealed that Judge Cervantes left unresolved one hundred sixty-five (165) cases for preliminary investigation and failed to decide 54 cases on time, which utterly points to Judge Cervantes' obvious inefficiency. The Court, cognizant of the caseload of judges and mindful of the difficulties encountered by them in the disposition of cases within the period fixed by law, remains sympathetic to their request for extension of time. Here, Judge Cervantes made no such request. We cannot, therefore, countenance his conduct which blatantly manifests his incompetence and ineptitude in discharging his functions, especially now when there is an all-out effort to minimize, if not eradicate, the problem of congestion long plaguing our courts. Judge Cervantes' failure to decide cases on time, therefore, merits administrative sanction.
Aside from Judge Cervantes' gross neglect of duty and inefficiency in the performance of his official duty, the Court likewise finds reason to wield disciplinary sanction on his indifference to the directive of the Court as well as of the OCA. In his letter dated June 2, 2005 addressed to the OCA, Judge Cervantes claimed that he was "almost finished" with the physical inventories and the monthly reports. As it is, however, no report was ever submitted by him prior to his retirement on November 23, 2005. Here, it is evident that he did not exert any effort to comply with the Court's directives.
In Guerrero v. Deray,[14] we held:
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., on official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-33.
[2] Id. at 34-41.
[3] Id. at 1-9.
[4] In Criminal Case Nos. 5257, 5318, 4303 to 4311, 5075, 5276 to 5287, 5049, 4333, 4334, 5498, 4727, 5085 and 5338; and Civil Case Nos. 653 to 655, 648, 427, 413, 517, 718, 642 to 646, 634, 611, 539, 394, 481, 522, 747, 581, 489, 490, 514, 660, 662, 651, 665 and 631 including the following ejectment cases, to wit: Civil Case Nos. 712, 717, 711, 627, 628, 629, 530, 792, 760, 762, 765, 782, 785, 771, 772, 773, 774, 753, 332, 351, 354, 355, 392, 406, 482, 241, 249, 251, 421, 713, 714, 716, 710, 709, 708 and 666 which are governed by the rules on summary procedure.
[5] In Criminal Case Nos. 6426, 6427 and 6428 (Motion to Quash), 4084 (Accused's Formal Offer of Exhibits), 4832 and 4923 (Complainant's Formal Offer of Evidence), 4597 (Motion For Reconsideration/Motion to Quash), 7006 (Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Lift Order of Arrest), 6113 (Motion to Admit Pre-Trial Order), 7378 (Motion to Withdraw Exhibits) and 7011 (Motion to Quash); and Civil Case Nos. 761 (Urgent Motion to Withdraw Complaint) and 714 (Motion for Reconsideration of Orders denying Motion to Dismiss).
[6] In Case Nos. 3839, 6474, 6669, 6884, 6779, 5978, 5533, 6899, 7018, 6997, 3982, 7003, 6906, 7206, 6816, 6817, 6826, 6808, 6914, 6885, 6913, 5929, 5014, 7227, 7087, 7088, 7089, 7027, 7020, 6993, 6953, 6942, 7099, 7098, 6911, 6905, 6897, 6824, 6850, 6833, 7090, 7091, 6267, 6264, 6231, 4593, 6590, 6226, 6225, 6241, 6746, 4003, 6591, 4088, 4089, 5314, 5268, 4046, 6035, 6105, 5738, 6420, 6543, 6108, 6066, 6419, 6524, 6525, 6351, 6299, 6185, 6002, 7203, 7306, 6071, 6675, 6561, 6500, 6707, 6917, 6918, 4855, 6676, 6568, 6570, 6528, 7009, 7190, 6838, 7031, 7019, 6269, 5181, 5539, 5148, 4005, 4394 and 6641 (offenses cognizable by the RTC); and 4394, 5181, 5148, 5539, 6269, 6641 and 6737 (offenses cognizable by the MTC).
[7] In Criminal Case Nos. 7055, 6984, 7210, 6985, 7224, 7008, 4708, 6823, 7142, 7444, 7445, 7398, 7195, 7196, 7239, 7499, 7523, 7249, 7248, 7284, 6852, 6833, 6899, 6939, 6242, 6710, 6728, 7149, 7197, 7199, 7207, 7209, 7219, 3581, 3923 and 6732 and in Criminal Case Nos. 6591, 6049, 6050, 6051, 6052 and 6953 where Judge Galvez had not acted on the Affidavit of Desistance filed by the private complainant.
[8] In Criminal Case Nos. 7428, 5966, 4951, 4833, 6080, 5951, 5465, 7396, 7397, 6588, 4297, 6899, 6137, (Pp v. Alcantara, Less Serious Physical Injuries), 6137 (Pp. v. Orbina, Viol. of PD 1602), 6680, 6731 (Pp v. Galinao, Viol. of PD 1602), 6732, 6733 (Pp v. Ilag, Viol. of PD 1602), 6733 (Pp v. Palmores, Viol. of PD 1602), 6734 (Pp v. Capuchino, Viol. of PD 1602), 6734 (Pp v. Mantis, Viol. of PD 1602), 6747, 6829, 6834, 6981 (Pp v. Bernardo, Serious Physical Injuries), 6981 (Pp v. Galang, Viol. of PD 1602), 6510, 6511, 7108, 7024 and 7032 and issuance of summonses in Civil Case Nos. 686, 487 and 291 since these cases were filed.
[9] Rollo, pp. 49-50.
[10] Id. at 71-72.
[11] Report on the On-the-Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 45 and 53, Bacolod City, A.M. No. 2-65-RTC, February 15, 2005, 451 SCRA 303.
[12] Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the Constitution.
[13] Rule 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
[14] A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, December 10, 2002, 393 SCRA 591.
Acting on those reports, the OCA, in its Memorandum Report[3] dated October 11, 2002 to then Chief Justice Hilario C. Davide, Jr., recommended, among others, that: (1) Judge Galvez be directed to explain within ten days from notice why no administrative sanction should be imposed upon her for: (a) failure to decide some 31 criminal cases and 66 civil cases despite the lapse of the reglementary period therefor;[4] (b) failure to resolve motions/incidents in some criminal and civil cases within the prescribed period;[5] (c) failure to take further appropriate action for an unreasonable length of time on criminal cases under preliminary investigation which are cognizable by the Regional Trial Court as well as by the MTC, some of which have been pending for preliminary investigation for several years already;[6] (d) failure to set, for quite a long time, the cases for arraignment after the accused therein had posted their bailbonds;[7] and (e) failure to take initial action such as issuance of subpoenas and summonses;[8] and (2) Acting Presiding Judge Alden V. Cervantes (now herein made respondent) be directed to decide/resolve those cases, motions and incidents left undecided/unresolved by Judge Galvez and to make a physical inventory of all cases pending in the said court with the assistance of the OIC;
Pursuant to the OCA's aforesaid Memorandum Report, the Court issued a Resolution on January 22, 2003, directing Acting Presiding Judge Alden V. Cervantes to conduct, within 10 days from notice, a physical inventory of all cases filed and pending before the subject court, and to submit a report thereon within thirty (30) days from notice, thus:
(5) DIRECT Hon. Alden V. Cervantes, Acting Presiding Judge, MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna, to:However, after more than a year had lapsed, Acting Presiding Judge Cervantes failed to comply with the foregoing directives. Hence, the OCA issued a memorandum to him reiterating the Court's directives and required his immediate compliance. Acting Presiding Judge Cervantes, together with Mrs. Elvira B. Manlegro, Acting Clerk of Court, and Mrs. Amelia D. Teñido, Clerk II and former Acting Clerk of Court, was likewise directed to submit to the Statistic Reports Division, Court Management Office-OCA, within one (1) month from notice thereof, the lacking Docket Inventory Reports and Monthly Reports of Cases which should include the data of those cases that had been pending and/or filed before October 1, 2001. In addition, Mrs. Teñido was also directed to assist Judge Cervantes and Mrs. Manlegro in the conduct of physical inventory of cases and in the preparation of the report.
(a) INFORM the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) whether the 31 criminal and 66 civil cases left undecided by Judge Zenaida Galvez aforementioned in item 2(a) and the pending unresolved 13 motions/incidents aforestated in item 2(b) have already been decided and resolved respectively, if not, to DECIDE said cases and RESOLVE said motions/incidents within ninety (90) days from notice and thereafter to furnish this office certified copies of the decisions/resolutions/orders within ten (10) days from promulgation/rendition/issuance thereof;
(b) INFORM the Court through the Office of the Court Administrator whether the court has already taken action on the cases mentioned in item 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e) and if not, to take APPROPRIATE ACTION on said cases giving PREFERENTIAL ATTENTION on these unacted criminal cases which up to date of audit is pending preliminary investigation as well as those which have not been set for arraignment and unacted motions in civil cases;
(c) ARCHIVE those criminal cases where the accused has remained at large for more than 6 months from issuance of warrants of arrest and civil cases where the defendants failed to answer for more than 6 months from issuance thereof pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92, as amended dated June 21, 1993;
(d) CONDUCT a physical inventory of all cases pending in said court with the assistance of the Officer-in-Charge, within ten (10) days from notice hereof and submit a report thereon within thirty (30) days from notice.[9]
Again, despite repeated directives, both verbal and written, Acting Presiding Judge Cervantes deferred the submission of the physical inventory of cases and the complete and accurate Monthly Reports of Cases and Docket Inventory Reports by semester, as directed in our Resolution.
In somewhat apathetic attitude, Judge Cervantes and the two other court personnel repeatedly attempted to submit, through their utility worker, incomplete and inaccurate Monthly Reports of Cases, the latest of which is a combined Docket Inventory Report for the period from January 1 to April 2004 instead of Docket Inventory Reports by semester. Not being in conformity with the prescribed forms, the reports were returned with reminders for Mrs. Manlegro and Mrs. Teñido to prepare their reports properly, accurately and in the prescribed forms before re-submitting the same to the Statistic Reports Division. Regrettably, the reminders fell on deaf ears.[10]
On February 8, 2005, the OCA submitted to then Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. a Memorandum regarding the non-submission of the monthly reports of cases and inventory reports of MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna. Acting on the said Memorandum, the Court, in a resolution dated May 3, 2005, resolved:
Acting Presiding Judge Cervantes moved for a reconsideration of said Resolution which immediately withheld his salaries and allowances and those of Acting Clerk of Court Manlegro and former OIC Clerk of Court Teñido. The Court then referred said letter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.
In due time, the OCA came out with its findings, recommending that Acting Presiding Judge Cervantes be charged with gross neglect of judicial duty, inefficiency in the performance of official functions and indifference to his responsibility concerning speedy disposition of cases. The pertinent portions of the OCA report are hereunder quoted, thus:
In a letter dated 20 September 2006, Judge Alden V. Cervantes, former presiding judge, Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Alaminos, Laguna and former acting presiding judge, MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna, requests that he be relieved of the task of submitting the revised docket inventory of cases for MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna for the years 2001, 2002, 2003 and 2004.The OCA accordingly recommended that Acting Presiding Judge Alden V. Cervantes be ordered to pay a fine of two hundred thousand (P200,000.00) pesos to be deducted from his retirement benefits. It also recommended that the resolution dated May 3, 2005 directing Judge Cervantes to submit the required complete and accurate monthly reports of cases corresponding to the months from October 1, 2001 to August 2004 and docket inventory reports by semester for the years 2001, 2002 and 2003 be set aside, considering that Judge Conrado L. Zumaraga had already submitted the same. Further, the OCA recommended that Judge Zumaraga be commended for his earnest effort to decide/resolve cases left undecided/ unresolved by his predecessors and for updating the semestral docket inventories and monthly reports of cases in his court.
He avers that he could no longer comply with the directive considering that he had already retired from the service and that a permanent presiding judge had already been appointed at MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna in the person of Judge Conrado L. Zumaraga. Judge Zumaraga was appointed on 7 July 2005 but assumed judicial function only on 20 September 2005.
Judge Cervantes contends that prior to his retirement, he has already submitted the docket inventory of cases for the years 2001 to 2004. The Court Management Office, OCA, however found discrepancies in the docket inventories submitted and required the court personnel concerned to undertake revisions thereon. He notes that the preparation and completion of the docket inventories were overtaken by his retirement on 23 November 2005. In fact, he claims in his letter dated 2 June 2005 that the docket inventories and monthly reports covering the period November 2000 to May 2005 are almost finished.
Judge Cervantes admits his failure to submit the correct docket inventories and asks forgiveness from the court. He suggests that instead of requiring him to comply with the directive, he instead be required to pay a fine for his failure. He requests that his retirement benefits be released to him and the corresponding fine covering the penalty be deducted from his retirement benefits because he does not have ready money in his possession to pay the fine.
It is noted that Judge Cervantes applied for optional retirement without first complying with the Court resolution dated 3 May 2005. His application for retirement which was made effective 23 November 2005 was filed on 9 September 2005. It was approved by the Court on 1 March 2006. Thus, he had all the time to comply with the 3 May 2005 resolution. If the physical inventories and monthly reports covering the period from November 2002 to May 2005 are "almost finished" as claimed by Judge Cervantes in his 2 June 2005 letter we see no reason why these reports could not be submitted prior to his application for retirement. It is evident that he did not exert any effort to comply with the resolution.
Moreover, before he could be given a clearance by this Office, the clerk of court of MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna was directed to submit a list of all the cases left undecided/unresolved by Judge Cervantes. In compliance with the directive, Clerk of Court Arlyn A. Hermano submitted a report on 8 December 2006.
The report revealed that Judge Cervantes left unresolved one hundred sixty-five (165) cases for preliminary investigation. These were all submitted before him for resolution but were resolved by Judge Conrado Zumaraga, the incumbent presiding judge. Likewise, Judge Cervantes left undecided fifty-four (54) cases submitted for decision. These include cases he inherited from Judge Zenaida L. Galvez, his predecessor. Four of these cases had already been decided by Judge Zumaraga.
It can be observed from the list submitted by the clerk of court of MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna that with respect to the cases for preliminary investigation, there were even cases submitted for resolution as early as March 2002. Some cases were filed as early as 16 May 2000.
It is noted that in the resolution dated 30 August 2005 in A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC Re: Amendment of Rules 112 and 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure by removing the conduct of preliminary investigation from judges of the first level courts, the Court ruled that all first level courts shall continue with the preliminary investigation of cases pending with them and terminate them not later than 31 December 2005. The resolution which took effect on 3 October 2005 likewise ruled that the first level courts, upon the date of effectivity of the amendments, shall no longer accept new cases for preliminary investigation.
Judge Cervantes not only failed to resolve the cases for preliminary investigation pending before him as mandated by the resolution, he was already in delay with respect to the majority of the cases already submitted for resolution. In fact, his application for optional retirement indicates that he evaded acting on these cases.
Records reveal that it was Judge Zumaraga who resolved all the cases for preliminary investigation left unresolved by Judge Cervantes. It was also only during the time of Judge Zumaraga that the correct docket inventories and monthly reports of cases were submitted. Records further reveal that MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna is now submitting regularly their updated semestral docket inventories and monthly reports of cases.
xxx xxx xxx
Judge Cervantes was evidently remiss in the performance of his duty to decide/resolve cases promptly and expeditiously. He was designated as acting presiding judge of MTC, Cabuyao on 31 January 2002. In his stead, Judge Zenaida L. Galvez was designated as acting presiding judge of MTC, Alaminos, Laguna. As full time acting presiding judge of MTC, Cabuyao, Laguna, Judge Cervantes therefore had all the time to act on cases pending therein.
We also note that Judge Cervantes had been continually collecting his salaries upon certification that he had no pending cases for decision/resolution, when in fact, a lot of cases are still awaiting his decisions/resolutions. His act seriously undermines and reflects on the honesty and integrity expected upon officers of the court. xxx
The Court accepts and adopts the foregoing evaluation, report and recommendation of the OCA, except as to the amount of the fine.
This Court has consistently impressed upon members of the judiciary the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases not only deprives litigants of their right to the speedy disposition of their cases, but it also tarnishes the image of the judiciary. Failure to decide cases on time constitutes inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.[11]
No less than the Constitution requires lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters submitted for decision or resolution within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution.[12] Likewise, the Code of Judicial Conduct enunciates that judges should administer justice without delay, and directs every judge to dispose of the court's business promptly within the period prescribed by law and the rules.[13] A judge is mandated by the Constitution to render judgment and resolve pending incidents not more than 90 days from the time the case is submitted for resolution.
The report dated December 8, 2006 by the incumbent Clerk of Court Atty. Arlyn A. Hermano revealed that Judge Cervantes left unresolved one hundred sixty-five (165) cases for preliminary investigation and failed to decide 54 cases on time, which utterly points to Judge Cervantes' obvious inefficiency. The Court, cognizant of the caseload of judges and mindful of the difficulties encountered by them in the disposition of cases within the period fixed by law, remains sympathetic to their request for extension of time. Here, Judge Cervantes made no such request. We cannot, therefore, countenance his conduct which blatantly manifests his incompetence and ineptitude in discharging his functions, especially now when there is an all-out effort to minimize, if not eradicate, the problem of congestion long plaguing our courts. Judge Cervantes' failure to decide cases on time, therefore, merits administrative sanction.
Aside from Judge Cervantes' gross neglect of duty and inefficiency in the performance of his official duty, the Court likewise finds reason to wield disciplinary sanction on his indifference to the directive of the Court as well as of the OCA. In his letter dated June 2, 2005 addressed to the OCA, Judge Cervantes claimed that he was "almost finished" with the physical inventories and the monthly reports. As it is, however, no report was ever submitted by him prior to his retirement on November 23, 2005. Here, it is evident that he did not exert any effort to comply with the Court's directives.
In Guerrero v. Deray,[14] we held:
It is hardly necessary to remind respondent that judges should respect the orders and decisions of higher tribunals, much more the Highest Tribunal of the land from which all other courts should take their bearings. A resolution of the Supreme Court is not to be construed as a mere request, nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. If at all, this omission not only betrays a recalcitrant flaw in respondent's character; it also underscores his disrespect of the Court's lawful orders and directives which is only too deserving of reproof.All told, the Court finds Judge Cervantes guilty of gross neglect of judicial duty and inefficiency in the performance of official function, for his failure to resolve/decide the preliminary investigation/cases within the period fixed by law. He is likewise guilty of gross misconduct for his callous disregard of this Court's previous Resolutions dated January 22, 2003 and May 3, 2005. However, the OCA's recommended penalty of fine in the amount of two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) is too harsh. Hence, we reduce it to only one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00).
Thus, in one case (Davila v. Generoso, 336 SCRA 576, 580), the failure of respondent judge to comply with the show-cause resolutions of the Court was deemed "grave and serious misconduct affecting his fitness and worthiness of the honor and integrity attached to his office." In Alonto-Frayna v. Astih (300 SCRA 199, 202-203), we further held:
A judge who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the resolution of this Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination. It is gross misconduct and even outright disrespect for this Court for respondent to exhibit indifference to the resolutions requiring him to comment on the accusations contained in the complaint against him.
In other words, indifference or defiance to the Court's orders or resolutions may be punished with dismissal, suspension or fine as warranted by the circumstances (Pineda E.L., Legal and Judicial Ethics, 1999 ed., p. 423).
WHEREFORE, judgment is hereby rendered as follows:
|
1.)
|
Acting Presiding Judge Alden V. Cervantes of the MTC of Cabuyao, Laguna is found guilty of gross neglect of judicial duty, inefficiency in the performance of official functions and gross misconduct, and is hereby ordered to pay a FINE of
one hundred thousand pesos (P100,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
|
|
|
|
|
2.)
|
The Resolution dated May 3, 2005 directing Judge Alden V. Cervantes to submit the required complete and accurate monthly reports of cases corresponding to the months from October 1, 2001 to August 2004, and docket inventory reports by
semester for years 2001, 2002 and 2003, is SET ASIDE it appearing that Judge Conrado L. Zumaraga had already submitted the same.
|
SO ORDERED.
Ynares-Santiago, and Azcuna, JJ., on official leave.
[1] Rollo, pp. 9-33.
[2] Id. at 34-41.
[3] Id. at 1-9.
[4] In Criminal Case Nos. 5257, 5318, 4303 to 4311, 5075, 5276 to 5287, 5049, 4333, 4334, 5498, 4727, 5085 and 5338; and Civil Case Nos. 653 to 655, 648, 427, 413, 517, 718, 642 to 646, 634, 611, 539, 394, 481, 522, 747, 581, 489, 490, 514, 660, 662, 651, 665 and 631 including the following ejectment cases, to wit: Civil Case Nos. 712, 717, 711, 627, 628, 629, 530, 792, 760, 762, 765, 782, 785, 771, 772, 773, 774, 753, 332, 351, 354, 355, 392, 406, 482, 241, 249, 251, 421, 713, 714, 716, 710, 709, 708 and 666 which are governed by the rules on summary procedure.
[5] In Criminal Case Nos. 6426, 6427 and 6428 (Motion to Quash), 4084 (Accused's Formal Offer of Exhibits), 4832 and 4923 (Complainant's Formal Offer of Evidence), 4597 (Motion For Reconsideration/Motion to Quash), 7006 (Motion for Reconsideration with Prayer to Lift Order of Arrest), 6113 (Motion to Admit Pre-Trial Order), 7378 (Motion to Withdraw Exhibits) and 7011 (Motion to Quash); and Civil Case Nos. 761 (Urgent Motion to Withdraw Complaint) and 714 (Motion for Reconsideration of Orders denying Motion to Dismiss).
[6] In Case Nos. 3839, 6474, 6669, 6884, 6779, 5978, 5533, 6899, 7018, 6997, 3982, 7003, 6906, 7206, 6816, 6817, 6826, 6808, 6914, 6885, 6913, 5929, 5014, 7227, 7087, 7088, 7089, 7027, 7020, 6993, 6953, 6942, 7099, 7098, 6911, 6905, 6897, 6824, 6850, 6833, 7090, 7091, 6267, 6264, 6231, 4593, 6590, 6226, 6225, 6241, 6746, 4003, 6591, 4088, 4089, 5314, 5268, 4046, 6035, 6105, 5738, 6420, 6543, 6108, 6066, 6419, 6524, 6525, 6351, 6299, 6185, 6002, 7203, 7306, 6071, 6675, 6561, 6500, 6707, 6917, 6918, 4855, 6676, 6568, 6570, 6528, 7009, 7190, 6838, 7031, 7019, 6269, 5181, 5539, 5148, 4005, 4394 and 6641 (offenses cognizable by the RTC); and 4394, 5181, 5148, 5539, 6269, 6641 and 6737 (offenses cognizable by the MTC).
[7] In Criminal Case Nos. 7055, 6984, 7210, 6985, 7224, 7008, 4708, 6823, 7142, 7444, 7445, 7398, 7195, 7196, 7239, 7499, 7523, 7249, 7248, 7284, 6852, 6833, 6899, 6939, 6242, 6710, 6728, 7149, 7197, 7199, 7207, 7209, 7219, 3581, 3923 and 6732 and in Criminal Case Nos. 6591, 6049, 6050, 6051, 6052 and 6953 where Judge Galvez had not acted on the Affidavit of Desistance filed by the private complainant.
[8] In Criminal Case Nos. 7428, 5966, 4951, 4833, 6080, 5951, 5465, 7396, 7397, 6588, 4297, 6899, 6137, (Pp v. Alcantara, Less Serious Physical Injuries), 6137 (Pp. v. Orbina, Viol. of PD 1602), 6680, 6731 (Pp v. Galinao, Viol. of PD 1602), 6732, 6733 (Pp v. Ilag, Viol. of PD 1602), 6733 (Pp v. Palmores, Viol. of PD 1602), 6734 (Pp v. Capuchino, Viol. of PD 1602), 6734 (Pp v. Mantis, Viol. of PD 1602), 6747, 6829, 6834, 6981 (Pp v. Bernardo, Serious Physical Injuries), 6981 (Pp v. Galang, Viol. of PD 1602), 6510, 6511, 7108, 7024 and 7032 and issuance of summonses in Civil Case Nos. 686, 487 and 291 since these cases were filed.
[9] Rollo, pp. 49-50.
[10] Id. at 71-72.
[11] Report on the On-the-Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 45 and 53, Bacolod City, A.M. No. 2-65-RTC, February 15, 2005, 451 SCRA 303.
[12] Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the Constitution.
[13] Rule 1.02, Canon 1 and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
[14] A.M. No. MTJ-02-1466, December 10, 2002, 393 SCRA 591.