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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Rule 1.02. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.

Rule 3.05. A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

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

Inability to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency^[4] warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on them.^[5] A judge should, at all times, remain in full control of the proceedings in his branch and should adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements more importantly, he should follow the time limit set for deciding cases.^[6] If he feels that he could not decide the case within the reglementary period, he should ask for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the case.^[7]

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

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

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

1) Criminal Case No. 1398 2) Criminal Case No. 2123 3) Criminal Case No. 2151 4) Criminal Case No. 2216 5) Criminal Case No. 2306 6) Criminal Case No. 2320 7) Criminal Case No. 2338 8) Criminal Case No. 2339 9) Criminal Case No. 2343 10) Criminal Case No. 2350 11) Criminal Case No. 2353 12) Criminal Case No. 2402 13) Criminal Case No. 2414 14) Criminal Case No. 2427 15) Criminal Case No. 2444 16) Criminal Case No. 2452 17) Criminal Case No. 2453 18) Criminal Case No. 2467 19) Criminal Case No. 2470 20) Criminal Case No. 2475 21) Criminal Case No. 2518 22) Criminal Case No. 2545 23) Criminal Case No. 2546 24) Criminal Case No. 2568 25) Criminal Case No. 2630 26) Criminal Case No. 2637 27) Criminal Case No. 2737 28) Criminal Case No. 2738 29) Criminal Case No. 2754 30) Criminal Case No. 2773 31) Criminal Case No. 2787 32) Criminal Case No. 2846 33) Criminal Case No. 01-96 34) Criminal Case No. 09-96 35) Criminal Case No. 17-96 36) Criminal Case No. 75-96 37) Criminal Case No. 139-96 38) Criminal Case No. 140-96 39) Criminal Case No. 147-96 40) Criminal Case No. 10-97 41) Criminal Case No. 12-97 42) Criminal Case No. 25-97 43) Criminal Case No. 26-97 44) Criminal Case No. 30-97 45) Criminal Case No. 43-97 46) Criminal Case No. 44-97 47) Criminal Case No. 89-97 48) Criminal Case No. 90-97 49) Criminal Case No. 99-97 50) Criminal Case No. 100-97 51) Criminal Case No. 151-97 52) Criminal Case No. 03-98 53) Criminal Case No. 06-98 54) Criminal Case No. 39-98 55) Criminal Case No. 41-98 56) Criminal Case No. 51-98 57) Criminal Case No. 52-98 58) Criminal Case No. 55-98 59) Criminal Case No. 57-98 60) Criminal Case No. 72-98 61) Criminal Case No. 73-98 62) Criminal Case No. 75-98 63) Criminal Case No. 80-98 64) Criminal Case No. 124-98 65) Criminal Case No. 126-98 66) Criminal Case No. 133-98 67) Criminal Case No. 188-98 68) Criminal Case No. 190-98 69) Criminal Case No. 191-98 70) Criminal Case No. 192-98 71) Criminal Case No. 209-98 72) Criminal Case No. 214-98 73) Criminal Case No. 217-98 74) Criminal Case No. 231-98 75) Criminal Case No. 242-98 76) Criminal Case No. 09-99 77) Criminal Case No. 98-99 78) Criminal Case No. 128-99 79) Criminal Case No. 158-99 80) Criminal Case No. 159-99 81) Criminal Case No. 170-99 82) Criminal Case No. 171-99 83) Criminal Case No. 173-99 84) Criminal Case No. 241-99 85) Criminal Case No. 314-99 86) Criminal Case No. 334-99 87) Criminal Case No. 385-99 88) Criminal Case No. 422-99 89) Criminal Case No. 471-99 90) Criminal Case No. 472-99 91) Criminal Case No. 473-99 92) Criminal Case No. 479-99 93) Criminal Case No. 487-99 94) Criminal Case No. 559-99 95) Criminal Case No. 586-99 96) Criminal Case No. 587-99 97) Criminal Case No. 597-99 98) Criminal Case No. 10-2000 99) Criminal Case No. 13-2000 100) Criminal Case No. 71-2000 101) Criminal Case No. 72-2000 102) Criminal Case No. 73-2000 103) Criminal Case No. 81-2000 104) Criminal Case No. 121-2000 105) Civil Case No. 0399 106) Civil Case No. 0578 107) Civil Case No. 0641 108) Civil Case No. 0675 109) Civil Case No. 0692 110) Civil Case No. 0785 111) Civil Case No. 0807 112) Civil Case No. 0809 113) Civil Case No. 0852 (857) 114) Civil Case No. 0862 115) Civil Case No. 0863 116) Civil Case No. 0878 117) Civil Case No. 0877 118) Civil Case No. 0879 119) Civil Case No. 0885 120) Civil Case No. 0894 121) Civil Case No. 0899 122) Civil Case No. 0906 123) Civil Case No. 1029 124) Civil Case No. 1065 125) Civil Case No. 21-99 126) Civil Case No. SP-29-97 127) Civil Case No. SP-15-98 128) Civil Case No. SP-01-2000 129) Civil Case No. SP-18-2000 130) Civil Case No. MISC-1742 131) Civil Case No. MISC-30-99 132) Criminal Case No. 2650 133) Criminal Case No. 66-96 134) Criminal Case No. 131-97 135) Criminal Case No. 132-97 136) Civil Case No. 898 137) Civil Case No. 98-01 138) Civil Case No. 02-99 139) Civil Case No. 2000-07 140) Criminal Case No. 1906 141) Criminal Case No. 1907 142) Criminal Case No. 2241 143) Criminal Case No. 2301 144) Criminal Case No. 2625 145) Criminal Case No. 2749 146) Criminal Case No. 2884 147) Criminal Case No. 2954 148) Criminal Case No. 2983 149) Criminal Case No. 43-96 150) Criminal Case No. 102-97 151) Criminal Case No. 103-97 152) Criminal Case No. 104-98 153) Criminal Case No. 238-98 154) Criminal Case No. 12-99 155) Criminal Case No. 386-99 156) Criminal Case No. 387-99 157) Criminal Case No. 391-99 158) Criminal Case No. 242-2000 159) Criminal Case No. 262-2000 160) Criminal Case No. 275-2000 161) Criminal Case No. 73-2001 162) Civil Case No. 2021 163) Civil Case No. 1042 164) Civil Case No. 1043 165) Civil Case No. 97-17 166) Civil Case No. 97-23 167) Civil Case No. 97-27 168) Civil Case No. 98-13 169) Civil Case No. 98-17 170) Civil Case No. 27-99 171) Civil Case No. 2000-06 172) Civil Case No. 2000-20 173) Civil Case No. 2001-09 174) Civil Case No. 2001-11 175) Special Civil Action No. SCA-04-2000 176) Special Civil Action No. SCA-01-2001 177) Civil Case No. SP-31-98 178) Civil Case No. SP-19-99 179) Civil Case No. SP-21-99 180) Civil Case No. SP-51-99 181) Civil Case No. SP-06-2000 182) Civil Case No. SP-08-2000 183) Civil Case No. SP-13-2000 184) Civil Case No. SP-14-2000 185) Civil Case No. SP-25-2000 186) Civil Case No. SP-46-2000 187) Civil Case No. SP-08-2001 188) Civil Case No. MISC-09-2000 189) Civil Case No. MISC-02-2001 190) Criminal Case No. 211-2001 191) Civil Case No. 132 192) Civil Case No. 164 193) Civil Case No. 2001-12 194) Civil Case No. SP-22-2001 195) Civil Case No. MISC-18-2001 196) Civil Case No. MISC-26-2001

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

Further, respondent Judge is directed to:

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

1) Criminal Case No. 1398   2) Criminal Case No. 2123   3) Criminal Case No. 2151   4) Criminal Case No. 2216   5) Criminal Case No. 2306   6) Criminal Case No. 2320   7) Criminal Case No. 2338   8) Criminal Case No. 2339   9) Criminal Case No. 2343   10) Criminal Case No. 2350   11) Criminal Case No. 2353   12) Criminal Case No. 2402   13) Criminal Case No. 2414   14) Criminal Case No. 2427   15) Criminal Case No. 2444   16) Criminal Case No. 2452   17) Criminal Case No. 2453   18) Criminal Case No. 2467   19) Criminal Case No. 2470   20) Criminal Case No. 2475   21) Criminal Case No. 2518   22) Criminal Case No. 2545   23) Criminal Case No. 2546   24) Criminal Case No. 2568   25) Criminal Case No. 2630   26) Criminal Case No. 2637   27) Criminal Case No. 2737   28) Criminal Case No. 2738   29) Criminal Case No. 2754   30) Criminal Case No. 2773   31) Criminal Case No. 2787   32) Criminal Case No. 2846   33) Criminal Case No. 01-96   34) Criminal Case No. 09-96   35) Criminal Case No. 17-96   36) Criminal Case No. 75-96   37) Criminal Case No. 139-96   38) Criminal Case No. 140-96   39) Criminal Case No. 147-96   40) Criminal Case No. 10-97   41) Criminal Case No. 12-97   42) Criminal Case No. 25-97   43) Criminal Case No. 26-97   44) Criminal Case No. 30-97   45) Criminal Case No. 43-97   46) Criminal Case No. 44-97   47) Criminal Case No. 89-97   48) Criminal Case No. 90-97   49) Criminal Case No. 99-97   50) Criminal Case No. 100-97   51) Criminal Case No. 151-97   52) Criminal Case No. 03-98   53) Criminal Case No. 06-98   54) Criminal Case No. 39-98   55) Criminal Case No. 41-98   56) Criminal Case No. 51-98   57) Criminal Case No. 52-98   58) Criminal Case No. 55-98   59) Criminal Case No. 57-98   60) Criminal Case No. 72-98   61) Criminal Case No. 73-98   62) Criminal Case No. 75-98   63) Criminal Case No. 80-98   64) Criminal Case No. 124-98   65) Criminal Case No. 126-98   66) Criminal Case No. 133-98   67) Criminal Case No. 188-98   68) Criminal Case No. 190-98   69) Criminal Case No. 191-98   70) Criminal Case No. 192-98   71) Criminal Case No. 209-98   72) Criminal Case No. 214-98   73) Criminal Case No. 217-98   74) Criminal Case No. 231-98   75) Criminal Case No. 242-98   76) Criminal Case No. 09-99   77) Criminal Case No. 98-99   78) Criminal Case No. 128-99   79) Criminal Case No. 158-99   80) Criminal Case No. 159-99   81) Criminal Case No. 170-99   82) Criminal Case No. 171-99   83) Criminal Case No. 173-99   84) Criminal Case No. 241-99   85) Criminal Case No. 314-99   86) Criminal Case No. 334-99   87) Criminal Case No. 385-99   88) Criminal Case No. 422-99   89) Criminal Case No. 471-99   90) Criminal Case No. 472-99   91) Criminal Case No. 473-99   92) Criminal Case No. 479-99   93) Criminal Case No. 487-99   94) Criminal Case No. 559-99   95) Criminal Case No. 586-99   96) Criminal Case No. 587-99   97) Criminal Case No. 597-99   98) Criminal Case No. 10-2000   99) Criminal Case No. 13-2000   100) Criminal Case No. 71-2000   101) Criminal Case No. 72-2000   102) Criminal Case No. 73-2000   103) Criminal Case No. 81-2000   104) Criminal Case No. 121-2000   105) Civil Case No. 0399   106) Civil Case No. 0578   107) Civil Case No. 0641   108) Civil Case No. 0675   109) Civil Case No. 0692   110) Civil Case No. 0785   111) Civil Case No. 0807   112) Civil Case No. 0809   113) Civil Case No. 0852 (857)   114) Civil Case No. 0862   115) Civil Case No. 0863   116) Civil Case No. 0878   117) Civil Case No. 0877   118) Civil Case No. 0879   119) Civil Case No. 0885   120) Civil Case No. 0894   121) Civil Case No. 0899   122) Civil Case No. 0906   123) Civil Case No. 1029   124) Civil Case No. 1065   125) Civil Case No. 21-99   126) Civil Case No. SP-29-97   127) Civil Case No. SP-15-98   128) Civil Case No. SP-01-2000   129) Civil Case No. SP-18-2000   130) Civil Case No. MISC-1742   131) Civil Case No. MISC-30-

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

1) Criminal Case No. 2650
2) Criminal Case No. 66-96
3) Criminal Case No. 131-97
4) Criminal Case No. 132-97
5) Civil Case No. 898
6) Civil Case No. 98-01
7) Civil Case No. 02-99
8) Civil Case No. 2000-07

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

1) Criminal Case No. 1906   2) Criminal Case No. 1907   3) Criminal Case No. 2241   4) Criminal Case No. 2301   5) Criminal Case No. 2625   6) Criminal Case No. 2749   7) Criminal Case No. 2884   8) Criminal Case No. 2954   9) Criminal Case No. 2983   10) Criminal Case No. 43-96   11) Criminal Case No. 102-97   12) Criminal Case No. 103-97   13) Criminal Case No. 104-98   14) Criminal Case No. 238-98   15) Criminal Case No. 12-99   16) Criminal Case No. 386-99   17) Criminal Case No. 387-99   18) Criminal Case No. 391-99   19) Criminal Case No. 242-2000   20) Criminal Case No. 262-2000   21) Criminal Case No. 275-2000   22) Criminal Case No. 73-2001   23) Civil Case No. 2021   24) Civil Case No. 1042   25) Civil Case No. 1043   26) Civil Case No. 97-17   27) Civil Case No. 97-23   28) Civil Case No. 97-27   29) Civil Case No. 98-13   30) Civil Case No. 98-17   31) Civil Case No. 27-99   32) Civil Case No. 2000-06   33) Civil Case No. 2000-20   34) Civil Case No. 2001-09   35) Civil Case No. 2001-11   36) Special Civil Action No. SCA-04-2000   37) Special Civil Action No. SCA-01-2001   38) Civil Case No. SP-31-98   39) Civil Case No. SP-19-99   40) Civil Case No. SP-21-99   41) Civil Case No. SP-51-99   42) Civil Case No. SP-06-2000   43) Civil Case No. SP-08-2000   44) Civil Case No. SP-13-2000   45) Civil Case No. SP-14-2000   46) Civil Case No. SP-25-2000   47) Civil Case No. SP-46-2000   48) Civil Case No. SP-08-2001   49) Civil Case No. MISC-09-2000   50) Civil Case No. MISC-02-2001

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

1) Criminal Case No. 211-2001 2) Civil Case No. 132 3) Civil Case No. 164 4) Civil Case No. 2001-12 5) Civil Case No. SP-22-2001 6) Civil Case No. MISC-18-2001 7) Civil Case No. MISC-26-2001

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

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

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

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

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

1) Criminal Case No. 53-97 2)Criminal Case No. 54-97 3) Criminal Case No. 55-97 4) Criminal Case No. 56-97 5) Criminal Case No. 57-97 6) Criminal Case No. 58-97 7) Criminal Case No. 59-97 8) Criminal Case No. 60-97 9) Criminal Case No. 61-97 10) Criminal Case No. 117-98 11) Criminal Case No. 02-99 12) Civil Case No. SP-06-200

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

1) Criminal Case No. 01-97   2) Criminal Case No. 118-97   3) Criminal Case No. 119-97   4) Criminal Case No. 120-97   5) Criminal Case No. 148-97   6) Criminal Case No. 130-98   7) Criminal Case No. 139-98   8) Criminal Case No. 140-98   9) Criminal Case No. 141-98   10) Criminal Case No. 142-98   11) Criminal Case No. 143-98   12) Criminal Case No. 144-98   13) Criminal Case No. 145-98   14) Criminal Case No. 192-98   15) Criminal Case No. 121-2001   16) Civil Case No. 98-32   17) Civil Case No. SP-168

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

SO ORDERED.

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

---

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

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

^[3] Ibid., p. 90.

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

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

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

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

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