THIRD DIVISION
[ A.M. No. 00-3-50-MTC, July 21, 2003 ]REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT +
REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BOCAUE, BULACAN
D E C I S I O N
REPORT ON JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT +
REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BOCAUE, BULACAN
D E C I S I O N
CARPIO MORALES, J.:
On account of an anonymous letter[1] dated January 3, 2000 received by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) complaining against Judge Lauro G. Bernardo (respondent), presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Bocaue,
Bulacan, about his deplorable attitude and inefficiency in the disposition of cases, the Judicial Audit Team of the OCA conducted on February 8-11, 2000 an audit in the said court.
The report[2] dated March 3, 2000 submitted by the audit team showed that 963 cases (847 criminal and 116 civil/other) were pending in the court as of February 8, 2000, the status of which are shown in the following tabulation:
For his part, respondent filed on August 7, 2000 a motion for extension of time[7] to submit his explanation and comment on the matters subject of this Court's May 2, 2000 Resolution. To the motion respondent attached a status report[8] of the cases mentioned in the resolution and his alleged "written request for further extension of time to resolve/decide the pending cases audited as of February 2000 which was included in his Certificate of Service [for February, March and April 2000] and for which [he] is still awaiting approval." By resolution[9] of July 3, 2000, this Court granted the motion for extension.
On August 1, 2000, respondent filed a motion for additional extension of time[10] to comply with this Court's May 2, 2000 Resolution. To the motion he attached his Certificate of Service for June 2000 wherein he claimed that "a request was made x x x for extension of time to render decision on the cases therein listed."
By Resolution[11] of August 21, 2000, this Court granted the second motion for extension, with warning that no further extension would be allowed.
On October 30, 2000, respondent again filed a "motion for last and ultimate extension of time"[12] to comply with the May 2, 2000 Resolution which was, by Resolution[13] of November 22, 2000, granted with warning that it would definitely be the last extension.
Respondent finally filed on February 1, 2001 an undated Manifestation of Compliance[14] to the May 2, 2000 Resolution wherein he stated that the 103 cases enumerated in paragraph (a) (1) thereof have been decided except for Civil Case Nos. 97-2716, 98-2882, 98-2942 and 98-2953,[15] and that he had already decided the 23 cases submitted for decision and resolved the 7 cases with motion for resolution mentioned in paragraph (a) (2) of the same resolution.[16] As to the 23 cases mentioned in paragraph (a) (4) of the resolution, he stated that appropriate action had already been taken and the therein listed 11 cases had been archived in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 (Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases).[17]
Complying with paragraph (a) (3) of still the same resolution, respondent explained that no court sessions were held on Tuesdays, Monday afternoons, Wednesday and Thursday mornings because with respect to criminal cases, no prosecutor is available on said days and time,[18] and with respect to civil cases, only one day sufficed for hearing them.[19] Respondent hastened to add, however, that when the court is not in session, he conducts preliminary examination of witnesses for purposes of issuing warrants of arrest and preliminary investigation of cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court; solemnizes marriages; and resolves pending motions and writes decisions of cases.[20] Further, respondent informed that in compliance with this Court's Resolution, he has avoided delays in the issuance of writs of execution on final judgments and refrained from conducting lengthy preliminary investigations/examinations.[21]
By Memorandum[22] of May 4, 2001, the OCA recommended that respondent be:
x x x
On August 27, 2001, respondent submitted another undated Manifestation of Compliance[23] to this Court's July 11, 2001 Resolution to which he attached duplicate original/photocopies of his decisions in the cases mentioned therein except for Criminal Case Nos. 95-092 to 95-096 which he claimed[24] to be still pending trial but were erroneously included as having been decided.[25] He also stated that beginning October 2001, a formal request for additional time to render/promulgate decisions would be filed for approval by this Court.[26]
By Memorandum[27] of April 3, 2002, the OCA recommended that the matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter which recommendation this Court finds well-taken.
Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. The Constitution in fact mandates that lower courts should resolve cases within 3 months, clearly intended to prevent delay in the administration of justice which erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute.[28]
Respondent did not indicate in his undated Manifestation of Compliance when he decided a total of 115 cases. Unquestionably though, they were decided beyond the reglementary period. Why he did not comply with the reglementary period of 90 days to render a decision, he did not also explain.[29]
When judges are unable to render a decision within the required period, they are not without remedy. It is not uncommon for this Court, upon proper application and in meritorious cases, especially when difficult questions of law or complex issues are involved, to grant judges of lower courts additional time to decide beyond the 90-day period.[30] In respondent's case however, he never requested for additional time to decide the cases submitted for decision. As correctly observed by the OCA, the only instance that he attempted to seek approval for additional time was when he submitted certificates of service after the conduct of the audit.[31]
This Court notes that as found by the OCA and reflected in the record on hand, the following reasons aggravated the delay of respondent in the disposition of cases:
The administrative complaint against respondent arose in 2000. Hence, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, before it was amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, which took effect on October 1, 2001, applies, for the amendment cannot apply retroactively.[32] Section 10 of said Rule 140 provides for the following:
Section 10. Sanctions.
x x x
x x x
WHEREFORE, Judge Lauro G. Bernardo is adjudged administratively liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and is hereby FINED in the amount of P19,000.00, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this decision be filed in the records of Judge Bernardo.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on official leave.
[1] Rollo at 14.
[2] Id. at 7-12.
[3] Id. at 16-17.
[4] Id. at 22.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Id. at 18-19.
[8] Id. at 20-22.
[9] Id. at 48.
[10] Id. at 50-52.
[11] Id. at 62.
[12] Id. at 63-64.
[13] Id. at 71.
[14] Id. at 75-79.
[15] Id. at 75-76.
[16] Id. at 77.
[17] Id. at 78.
[18] Id. at 77.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Id. at 78.
[22] Id. at 81-88.
[23] Id. at 91-93
[24] Vide footnote on page 13 of April 3, 2002 OCA Memorandum.
[25] Rollo at 91.
[26] Id. at 93.
[27] Id. at 318-336.
[28] Re: Inventory of Cases In RTC Br. 55, Alaminos, Pangasinan, 262 SCRA 555 (1996).
[29] Rollo at 331.
[30] Lambino v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 60 (1997)
[31] Rollo at 334.
[32] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Agustin T. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1370, April 25, 2003.
The report[2] dated March 3, 2000 submitted by the audit team showed that 963 cases (847 criminal and 116 civil/other) were pending in the court as of February 8, 2000, the status of which are shown in the following tabulation:
In light of the report, and on recommendation of the OCA, this Court, by Resolution of May 2, 2000, directed:
CASE STATUS/STAGE OF PROCEEDINGS TOTAL CRIMINAL CIVIL With decisions for promulgation Submitted for decision With incidents for resolution On trial/Set for hearing Set for pre-trial For arraignment of accused Set for preliminary conference For preliminary investigation For ex parte reception of evidence With orders for compliance by parties Subject of inhibition of Judge Bernardo Without further action or setting despite the lapse of considerable length of time With warrants of arrest/summons TOTAL
Complying with paragraph (b) of the above directive-resolution of this Court, the MTC of Bocaue Clerk of Court Ma. Fe O. Dimagiba, by 1st Indorsement[4] dated May 30, 2000, informed that the joint decision in Criminal Case Nos. 95-179 and 95-180, which was scheduled for promulgation on February 21, 2000, was reset to February 28, 2000 in view of the absence of Public Prosecutor Frederick F. Malapit; was again reset to April 10, 2000 in the absence of proof of service of the subpoena and notice sent to the accused and her counsel;[5] and was finally ordered entered into the docket of the court on April 10, 2000 in view of the absence of the accused and her counsel despite due notice.[6]
(a) (b)
For his part, respondent filed on August 7, 2000 a motion for extension of time[7] to submit his explanation and comment on the matters subject of this Court's May 2, 2000 Resolution. To the motion respondent attached a status report[8] of the cases mentioned in the resolution and his alleged "written request for further extension of time to resolve/decide the pending cases audited as of February 2000 which was included in his Certificate of Service [for February, March and April 2000] and for which [he] is still awaiting approval." By resolution[9] of July 3, 2000, this Court granted the motion for extension.
On August 1, 2000, respondent filed a motion for additional extension of time[10] to comply with this Court's May 2, 2000 Resolution. To the motion he attached his Certificate of Service for June 2000 wherein he claimed that "a request was made x x x for extension of time to render decision on the cases therein listed."
By Resolution[11] of August 21, 2000, this Court granted the second motion for extension, with warning that no further extension would be allowed.
On October 30, 2000, respondent again filed a "motion for last and ultimate extension of time"[12] to comply with the May 2, 2000 Resolution which was, by Resolution[13] of November 22, 2000, granted with warning that it would definitely be the last extension.
Respondent finally filed on February 1, 2001 an undated Manifestation of Compliance[14] to the May 2, 2000 Resolution wherein he stated that the 103 cases enumerated in paragraph (a) (1) thereof have been decided except for Civil Case Nos. 97-2716, 98-2882, 98-2942 and 98-2953,[15] and that he had already decided the 23 cases submitted for decision and resolved the 7 cases with motion for resolution mentioned in paragraph (a) (2) of the same resolution.[16] As to the 23 cases mentioned in paragraph (a) (4) of the resolution, he stated that appropriate action had already been taken and the therein listed 11 cases had been archived in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 (Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases).[17]
Complying with paragraph (a) (3) of still the same resolution, respondent explained that no court sessions were held on Tuesdays, Monday afternoons, Wednesday and Thursday mornings because with respect to criminal cases, no prosecutor is available on said days and time,[18] and with respect to civil cases, only one day sufficed for hearing them.[19] Respondent hastened to add, however, that when the court is not in session, he conducts preliminary examination of witnesses for purposes of issuing warrants of arrest and preliminary investigation of cases cognizable by the Regional Trial Court; solemnizes marriages; and resolves pending motions and writes decisions of cases.[20] Further, respondent informed that in compliance with this Court's Resolution, he has avoided delays in the issuance of writs of execution on final judgments and refrained from conducting lengthy preliminary investigations/examinations.[21]
By Memorandum[22] of May 4, 2001, the OCA recommended that respondent be:
which this Court approved by Resolution dated July 11, 2001.
(a) DIRECTED to (b) (2)
On August 27, 2001, respondent submitted another undated Manifestation of Compliance[23] to this Court's July 11, 2001 Resolution to which he attached duplicate original/photocopies of his decisions in the cases mentioned therein except for Criminal Case Nos. 95-092 to 95-096 which he claimed[24] to be still pending trial but were erroneously included as having been decided.[25] He also stated that beginning October 2001, a formal request for additional time to render/promulgate decisions would be filed for approval by this Court.[26]
By Memorandum[27] of April 3, 2002, the OCA recommended that the matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter which recommendation this Court finds well-taken.
Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins a judge to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. The Constitution in fact mandates that lower courts should resolve cases within 3 months, clearly intended to prevent delay in the administration of justice which erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute.[28]
Respondent did not indicate in his undated Manifestation of Compliance when he decided a total of 115 cases. Unquestionably though, they were decided beyond the reglementary period. Why he did not comply with the reglementary period of 90 days to render a decision, he did not also explain.[29]
When judges are unable to render a decision within the required period, they are not without remedy. It is not uncommon for this Court, upon proper application and in meritorious cases, especially when difficult questions of law or complex issues are involved, to grant judges of lower courts additional time to decide beyond the 90-day period.[30] In respondent's case however, he never requested for additional time to decide the cases submitted for decision. As correctly observed by the OCA, the only instance that he attempted to seek approval for additional time was when he submitted certificates of service after the conduct of the audit.[31]
This Court notes that as found by the OCA and reflected in the record on hand, the following reasons aggravated the delay of respondent in the disposition of cases:
Respondent's delayed disposition of a big number of cases reflects the cramming done by him in rendering of decisions, which should not be the manner in which judges should render decisions. For decision-making entails a thorough study of the evidence presented and the applicable laws for each case.
- Sessions are held only three days a week;
- Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 dated June 21, 1993 was not faithfully complied with;
- Cases cognizable by the court still go through the preliminary investigation process; and
- Failure to properly observe the following circulars:
a) Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 28, 1998, reiterated in Administrative Circular 10-94 dated June 29, 1994 regarding effective docket control; and b)
The administrative complaint against respondent arose in 2000. Hence, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, before it was amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, which took effect on October 1, 2001, applies, for the amendment cannot apply retroactively.[32] Section 10 of said Rule 140 provides for the following:
Section 10. Sanctions.
B.
- Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for one (1) to two (2) months and twenty-nine days; or
- A fine not less than P10,000 but not more than P19,999.
WHEREFORE, Judge Lauro G. Bernardo is adjudged administratively liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and is hereby FINED in the amount of P19,000.00, with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this decision be filed in the records of Judge Bernardo.
SO ORDERED.
Puno, (Chairman), Panganiban, and Corona, JJ., concur.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., on official leave.
[1] Rollo at 14.
[2] Id. at 7-12.
[3] Id. at 16-17.
[4] Id. at 22.
[5] Ibid.
[6] Ibid.
[7] Id. at 18-19.
[8] Id. at 20-22.
[9] Id. at 48.
[10] Id. at 50-52.
[11] Id. at 62.
[12] Id. at 63-64.
[13] Id. at 71.
[14] Id. at 75-79.
[15] Id. at 75-76.
[16] Id. at 77.
[17] Id. at 78.
[18] Id. at 77.
[19] Ibid.
[20] Ibid.
[21] Id. at 78.
[22] Id. at 81-88.
[23] Id. at 91-93
[24] Vide footnote on page 13 of April 3, 2002 OCA Memorandum.
[25] Rollo at 91.
[26] Id. at 93.
[27] Id. at 318-336.
[28] Re: Inventory of Cases In RTC Br. 55, Alaminos, Pangasinan, 262 SCRA 555 (1996).
[29] Rollo at 331.
[30] Lambino v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 60 (1997)
[31] Rollo at 334.
[32] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Agustin T. Sardido, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1370, April 25, 2003.