Supreme Court E-Library
Information At Your Fingertips


  View printer friendly version

422 Phil. 246

EN BANC

[ A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC, November 28, 2001 ]

RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN.

R E S O L U T I O N

PARDO, J.:

The Case

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

The Antecedents

On July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim, transmitted to the Court a Resolution[1] addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan (hereafter, the Resolution).[2] We quote the Resolution in full:[3]
"WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies,"

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"Done in Los Baños, Laguna, this 29th day of July, 2000."
On August 8, 2000, the Court required Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena to comment on the letter of the IBP and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayan cases pending decision, or with motion for reconsideration pending resolution, indicating the dates they were deemed submitted for decision or resolution.[4]

On September 27, 2000, complying with the order, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a report[5] (hereafter, the compliance) admitting a number of cases submitted for decision and motion for reconsideration pending resolution before its divisions. We quote:
 
"Cases Submitted
W/ Motions For Reconsideration
"For Decision  
       
"1st Division
341 None  
"2nd Division
5 None  
"3rd Division
12 None  
"4th Division
5 None  
"5th Division
52 1  
"Total
415"[6]    
Thus, the Sandiganbayan has a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases for decision remaining undecided long beyond the reglementary period to decide, with one case submitted as early as May 24, 1990,[7] and motion for reconsideration which has remained unresolved over thirty days from submission.[8]

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

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

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

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

On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum to the Court[16] stating that the causes of delay in the disposition of cases before the Sandiganbayan are:[17]
(1)
Failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation report despite the lapse of several years;

(2)
Filing of numerous incidents such as Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Quash, Demurrer to Evidence, etc. that remain unresolved for years;

(3)
Suspension of proceedings because of a pending petition for certiorari and prohibition with the Supreme Court;

(4)
Cases remain unacted upon or have no further settings despite the lapse of considerable length of time; and

(5)
Unloading of cases already submitted for decision even if the ponente is still in service.
We consider ex mero motu the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as an administrative complaint against Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena for "serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan," amounting to incompetence, inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and misconduct in office.

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

The Issues

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

The Court's Ruling

We resolve the issues presented in seriatim.

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

Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution provides:
"Sec. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission to the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

"(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself."[22]
The above provision does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of Appeals.[23]

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

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

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

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

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

The law creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 1606[34] is clear on this issue.[35] It provides:
"Sec. 6. Maximum period for termination of cases - As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous until terminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision."
On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules,[36] thus:[37]
"Sec. 3 Maximum Period to Decide Cases - The judgment or final order of a division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision (underscoring ours)."
Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3) month period, not the twelve (12) month period, to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan. Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan presently sitting in five (5) divisions,[38] functions as a trial court. The term "trial" is used in its broad sense, meaning, it allows introduction of evidence by the parties in the cases before it.[39] The Sandiganbayan, in original cases within its jurisdiction, conducts trials, has the discretion to weigh the evidence of the parties, admit the evidence it regards as credible and reject that which they consider perjurious or fabricated.[40]

Compliance with its Own Rules

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

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

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

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

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

                                                             First Division

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

                                                             Second Division*

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

                                                             Third Division**

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

                                                             Fourth Division***

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

                                                             Fifth Division****

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

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

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

                              First Division
Case Number Date Submitted
Criminal Cases
1. 11156 8/9/91
2. 11157 8/9/91
3. 11158 8/9/91
4. 11159 8/9/91
5. 11160 8/9/91
6. 11999 12/10/90
7. 12102 7/1/91
8. 12127 2/12/90
9. 12139 6/10/92
10. 12289 8/28/91
11. 12305 2/7/91
12. 12306 2/7/91
13. 13015 3/2/92
14. 13171 11/16/95
15. 13353 10/6/90
16. 13521 12/12/99
17. 13563 7/4/95
18. 13618 7/14/91
19. 13668 6/13/93
20. 13672 3/5/92
21. 13679 8/6/91
22. 13680 8/6/91
23. 13689 11/14/92
24. 13690 11/14/92
25. 13691 11/14/92
26. 13692 11/14/92
27. 13693 11/14/92
28. 13694 11/14/92
29. 13695 11/14/92
30. 13708 3/9/92
31. 13747 8/19/94
32. 13748 8/19/94
33. 13971 3/12/95
34. 14223 3/7/97
35. 14227 9/5/92
36. 14230 11/30/90
37. 14287 7/3/94
38. 14324 11/5/95
39. 14375 5/22/95
40. 14411 1/24/93
41. 14975 9/29/94
42. 14986 12/11/92
43. 15006 11/19/94
44. 15168 3/25/93
45. 15301 3/16/94
46. 16239 12/26/91
47. 16516 11/19/91
48. 16583 8/13/96
49. 16584 8/13/96
50. 16585 8/13/96
51. 16695 8/15/96
52. 16854 1/15/96
53. 16927 12/17/95
54. 16928 12/17/95
55. 16946 8/4/93
56. 17001 9/4/97
57. 17278 5/2/94
58. 17447 9/6/94
59. 17448 9/6/94
60. 17514 8/19/94
61. 17600 8/30/97
62. 17601 8/30/97
63. 17670 11/25/94
64. 17759 6/25/96
65. 17901 5/28/98
66. 18283 2/21/95
67. 18696 8/9/98
68. 18857 10/21/98
69. 19059 2/11/99
70. 19060 2/11/99
71. 19061 2/11/99
72. 19062 2/11/99
73. 19063 2/11/99
74. 19534 9/2/98
75. 19535 9/2/98
76. 19651 11/15/96
77. 19708 8/25/98
78. 19773 5/21/99
79. 19774 5/21/99
80. 19775 5/21/99
81. 19976 5/21/99
82. 19977 5/21/99
83. 19978 5/21/99
84. 19979 5/21/99
85. 20588 2/14/95
86. 20688 7/9/98
87. 20948 10/9/97
88. 20949 10/9/97
89. 21020 7/4/95
90. 22145 7/7/99
91. 22195 6/14/96
92. 22196 6/14/96
93. 22832 10/21/98
94. 23042 8/27/98
95. 23146 11/13/00
96. 23273 4/19/99
97. 23323 3/23/00
98. 23324 8/3/97
99. 23336 9/4/97
100. 23374 12/17/98
101. 23418 10/15/99
102. 23419 10/15/99
103. 23420 10/15/99
104. 23421 10/15/99
105. 23422 10/15/99
106. 23423 10/15/99
107. 23509 9/5/98
108. 23511 4/23/99
109. 23540 10/15/99
110. 24042 4/28/99
111. 24043 4/28/99
112. 24044 4/28/99
113. 24045 4/28/99
114. 24046 4/28/99
115. 24047 4/28/99
116. 24048 4/28/99
117. 24049 4/28/99
118. 24050 4/28/99
119. 24051 4/28/99
120. 24052 4/28/99
121. 24053 4/28/99
122. 24054 4/28/99
123. 24055 4/28/99
124. 24056 4/28/99
125. 24057 4/28/99
126. 24058 4/28/99
127. 24059 4/28/99
128. 24060 4/28/99
129. 24061 4/28/99
130. 24062 4/28/99
131. 24063 4/28/99
132. 24064 4/28/99
133. 24065 4/28/99
134. 24066 4/28/99
135. 24067 4/28/99
136. 24068 4/28/99
137. 24069 4/28/99
138. 24070 4/28/99
139. 24071 4/28/99
140. 24072 4/28/99
141. 24073 4/28/99
142. 24074 4/28/99
143. 24075 4/28/99
144. 24076 4/28/99
145. 24077 4/28/99
146. 24078 4/28/99
147. 24079 4/28/99
148. 24080 4/28/99
149. 24081 4/28/99
150. 24082 4/28/99
151. 24083 4/28/99
152. 24084 4/28/99
153. 24085 4/28/99
154. 24086 4/28/99
155. 24087 4/28/99
156. 24088 4/28/99
157. 24089 4/28/99
158. 24090 4/28/99
159. 24091 4/28/99
160. 24092 4/28/99
161. 24093 4/28/99
162. 24094 4/28/99
163. 24095 4/28/99
164. 24096 4/28/99
165. 24097 4/28/99
166. 24098 4/28/99
167. 24150 1/31/00
168. 24236 2/14/00
169. 24237 2/14/00
170. 24281 5/9/99
171. 24319 11/4/99
172. 24320 11/4/99
173. 24321 11/4/99
174. 24322 11/4/99
175. 24323 11/4/99
176. 24324 11/4/99
177. 24325 11/4/99
178. 24326 11/4/99
179. 24327 11/4/99
180. 24328 11/4/99
181. 24329 11/4/99
182. 24339 10/20/00
183. 24355 2/18/99
184. 24395 7/13/99
185. 24402 6/17/99
186. 24433 9/6/99
187. 24434 9/6/99
188. 24531 12/16/99
189. 24532 12/16/99
190. 24533 12/16/99
191. 24534 12/16/99
192. 24631 8/9/99
193. 24768 7/8/00
194. 6672 7/11/90
195. 9977 5/10/94
Civil Case
1. 0112 1/11/92
2. 0116 10/16/91
3. 0156 3/14/97
                              Second Division
Case No. Date Submitted
Criminal Case
1. 19542 4/16/99
2. 19004 9/10/96
3. 22934 10/14/00
4. 20483 8/28/96
5. 20484 8/28/96
6. 23529 10/23/00
7. 23530 10/23/00
8. 23338 12/2/99
9. 18786 11/28/00
10. 19686 07/2/97
11. 184403 12/4/98
12. 184404 12/4/98
13. 184405 12/4/98
14. 184406 12/4/98
15. 184407 12/4/98
16. 184408 12/4/98
17. 184409 12/4/98
18. 184410 12/4/98
19. 184411 12/4/98
20. 184412 12/4/98
21. 184413 12/4/98
22. 184414 12/4/98
23. 184415 12/4/98
24. 184416 12/4/98
25. 184417 12/4/98
26. 13827 8/30/00
27. 13828 8/30/00
28. 13829 8/30/00
29. 13830 8/30/00
30. 13831 8/30/00
31. 13832 8/30/00
32. 18965 11/30/00
33. 19848 3/28/96
34. 20765 8/30/96
35. 20816 3/11/98
36. 19692 8/27/00
37. 19693 8/27/00
38. 19694 8/27/00
39. 19695 8/27/00
40. 19696 8/27/00
41. 19697 8/27/00
42. 19698 8/27/00
43. 19699 8/27/00
44. 19700 8/27/00
45. 19701 8/27/00
46. 19702 8/27/00
47. 19703 8/27/00
48. 19704 8/27/00
49. 19705 8/27/00
50. 19706 8/27/00
51. 19707 8/27/00
52. 23262 10/11/00
53. AR#035 12/9/00
54. 24994 8/17/00
55. 21097 12/13/00
56. 20660 12/20/00
57. 23111 11/27/00
58. 24407 7/27/00
59. 24408 7/27/00
60. 18435 3/21/00
61. 22858 8/4/00
62. 22976 5/4/99
Civil Case
1. 0171 7/10/00
                              Third Division
Case Number Date Submitted
1.SCA/005 12/18/00
2.A/R 016 8/5/99
3.A/R 029 10/2/00
4.487 4/8/98
5.488 4/8/98
6.489 4/8/98
7.490 4/8/98
8.491 4/8/98
9.11794 6/10/00
10.13861 4/6/00
11. 13862 4/6/00
12. 13863 4/6/00
13. 13889 3/25/99
14. 16756 8/25/99
15. 17532 12/11/00
16. 18867 10/5/00
17. 18868 10/5/00
18. 18869 10/5/00
19. 18870 10/5/00
20. 18871 10/5/00
21. 18872 10/5/00
22. 19182 4/6/00
23. 19563 4/6/00
24. 19574 4/6/00
25. 19622 4/6/00
26. 19623 4/6/00
27. 19624 4/6/00
28. 20053 4/6/00
29. 20054 4/6/00
30. 20271 12/18/00
31. 22143 12/18/00
32. 23014 9/23/00
33. 23522 7/6/00
34. 23699 3/22/00
35. 23700 3/22/00
36. 23701 3/22/00
37. 23802 9/10/00
38. 23803 9/10/00
39. 24153 12/18/00
40. 24697 9/10/00
41. 24698 9/10/00
42. 24741 12/7/00
43. 24779 10/28/00
44. 24780 10/28/00
45. 24781 10/28/00
46. 25657 5/5/00
                              Fourth Division
Case No. Date Submitted
1. 11960 09/21/98
2.17664 01/29/98
3.13036 02/22/99
4.13037 02/22/99
5.13593 05/21/96
6.13594 05/21/96
7.13757 03/21/97
8.14380 02/14/95
9.16809 03/26/00
10.17015 06/06/94
11.17016 06/06/94
12.17140 06/13/96
13.17141 06/13/96
14.17209 12/27/96
15.17805 02/15/00
16.17806 02/15/00
17.17809 02/15/00
18. 17856 04/02/00
19. 18005 05/07/96
20. 18006 05/07/96
21. 18257 09/22/97
22. 18894 11/17/00
23. 18895 11/17/00
24. 18896 11/17/00
25. 18900 10/28/00
26. 18935 06/16/00
27. 18936 06/16/00
28. 18937 06/16/00
29. 19567 05/21/96
30. 20338 05/19/97
31. 20469 07/07/00
32. 20470 07/07/00
33. 20471 07/07/00
34. 20472 07/07/00
35. 20473 07/07/00
36. 20474 07/07/00
37. 20475 07/07/00
38. 20476 07/07/00
39. 20664 06/29/96
40. 20685 02/18/00
41. 20828 09/13/00
42. 21093 08/07/99
43. 21131 08/04/96
44. 21778 09/29/97
45. 21779 09/29/97
46. 21780 09/29/97
47. 22891 03/02/00
48. 22892 03/02/00
49. 23007 05/24/99
50. 23058 04/27/00
51. 23059 04/27/00
52. 23060 04/27/00
53. 23061 04/27/00
54. 23062 04/27/00
55. 23366 03/28/99
56. 23415 05/25/00
57. 23534 12/15/00
58. 23708 09/27/00
59. 24447 09/18/00
60. 24448 09/18/00
61. 24464 07/26/00
62. 24465 07/26/00
63. 24742 10/10/00
64. 24841 03/22/00
65. 24842 03/22/00
66. 24851 10/29/00
67. 25198 05/31/00
68. 25389 09/26/00
69. 25543 12/27/00
70. 25658 07/28/00
                              Fifth Division
Case Number Date Submitted
Criminal Cases
1. 14397 1/4/99
2. 16672 2/13/00
3. 17030 2/19/98
4. 17826 12/9/00
5. 17827 12/9/00
6. 18478 8/21/00
7. 18684 5/29/98
8. 18880 12/6/00
9. 19510 12/4/00
10. 19511 12/4/00
11. 19512 12/4/00
12. 19593 6/5/98
13. 19614 7/31/98
14. 19668 7/26/98
15. 20194 1/8/01
16. 20427 11/3/99
17. 20648 1/4/98
18. 20649 1/4/98
19. 20694 3/11/98
20. 21882 8/12/00
21. 22184 12/16/00
22. 22873 12/4/99
23. 22926 11/13/00
24. 23066 8/16/99
25. 23319 9/30/00
26. 23450 9/16/00
27. 23515 1/29/00
28. 24155 11/30/00
29. 24379 8/27/00
30. 24759 5/5/00
31. 24858 12/28/00
We find that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena failed to devise an efficient recording and filing system to enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition. This is his duty on which he failed.[53]

Memorandum of the Court Administrator

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

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

First Division

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

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

Second Division

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

Third Division

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

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

Fourth Division**

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

Fifth Division

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

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

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

Administrative Circular 10-94[57] directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their dockets. The docket inventory procedure is as follows:[58]
"a. Every trial judge shall submit not later than the last week of February and the last week of August of each year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate on a horizontal column the following data:

"1. Title of the case

"2. Date of Filing

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

"4. Date of initial trial

"5. Date of last hearing

"6. Date submitted for Decision

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

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

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

Court and Station ________
Presiding Judge    ________

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

"CERTIFICATION:

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

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

Mora Decidendi

We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000:[59]
"This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of the bench.[60] Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency[61] that warrants disciplinary sanction, including fine,[62] suspension[63] and even dismissal.[64] The rule particularly applies to justices of the Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it into disrepute.[65] Delays cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the nation's determination to succeed in its war against graft (underscoring ours)."
In Yuchengco v. Republic,[66] we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice. We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the nation's anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for graft, uphold the right of all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases and avert the precipitate loss of their rights.

Practice of Unloading Cases

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

                                        First Division

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

                                        Second Division

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

                                        Third Division

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

                                        Fourth Division

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

                                        Fifth Division

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

Relief of Presiding Justice

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Directive

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:
(1) To IMPOSE on Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of twenty thousand pesos (P20,000.00), for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty.

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

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

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

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

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

SO ORDERED.

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


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

[2] Rollo, p. 2.

[3] Rollo, pp. 3-4.

[4] Rollo, p. 5.

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

[6] Rollo, p. 6.

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

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

[9] Rollo, pp. 30-43.

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

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

[12] Rollo, p. 52.

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

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

[15] Rollo, p. 56.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[29] Ibid.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[49] Rollo, p. 56.

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

[51] As of December 21, 2000.

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

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

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

[55] Rollo, pp. 489-498.

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

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

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

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

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

[57] Dated June 29, 1994.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[70] 370 Phil. 287 (1999).

[71] Supra, at p. 288.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

[79] Supra, Note 78.

[80] As of December 21, 2000.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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



CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION

DE LEON, J.:

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

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

Section 15 (1) and (2) Article VII of the 1997 Constitution, however, provides that:
Sec. 15 (1). All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

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

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

In this connection, be it noted that section 1 of R.A. No. 8249 further amending P.D. No. 1606, as amended, provides that:
Section 1. Sandiganbayan; Composition; Qualification; Tenure; Removal and Compensation - A special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, to be known as the Sandiganbayan is hereby created composed of a presiding justice and fourteen associate justices who shall be appointed by the President.
Incidentally, per the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan, each division is composed of three (3) justices whose unanimous vote is required to render a decision, resolution or order. In the event there is a dissent, a special division is formed whereby two (2) justices who shall be chosen by raffle and added to the division concerned, in which event, the majority rule shall prevail. For that reason and considering also that appeals from the decisions of the Sandiganbayan are to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan as a collegiate trial court, is significantly different from the one-man regional trial court.

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

© Supreme Court E-Library 2019
This website was designed and developed, and is maintained, by the E-Library Technical Staff in collaboration with the Management Information Systems Office.