522 Phil. 87
GARCIA, J.:
CASE NO. | TITLE | NATURE | DATE SUBMITTED FOR DECISION | DUE DATE REMARKS | |
| |||||
CRIMINAL CASE: | |||||
| |||||
4265 | Bito | Acts of Lasciviosness | 09-29-04 | 12-28-04 | WITHIN |
2366 | Lepasana, et al. | Robbery | 09-22-04 | 12-21-04 | WITHIN |
4007 | J. Dela Cruz | Sec.68 P.D. 705 | 09-20-04 | 12-19-04 | WITHIN |
2675 | Cesar Azores, et al. | HOMICIDE | 10-18-04 | 01-16-05 | WITHIN |
| |||||
CIVIL CASE: | |||||
| |||||
2097 | Sps. Leo H. Blanco, et al. vs. Municipality of Carigaea, Leyte | Quieting of title, Recovery of Real Property | 09-10-04 | 12-09-04 | WITHIN |
SCA 44 | NAPOCOR vs. Sps. Yu, et al. | Eminent Domain | 06-25-04 | 09-23-04- | BEYOND |
1523 | E. Cadavez, et al. vs. E. Mendoza | Recovery of Real Property | 02-20-04 | 05-20-04 | BEYOND |
SP 772 | Sps. Brian Mark Arret & Nimfa Arret | Adoption | 11-04-04 | 02-02-05 | WITHIN |
2193 | L. Tablate vs. Sps. Emilio and Irene Castroverde | Forcible Entry w/ prayer fro issuance of writ of prohibitory injuction w/ application for the issuance of a status quo order | 11-09-04 | 02-07-05 | WITHIN |
2171 | Ma. Clara Carolino vs. Sps. | Illegal Detainer w/ Damages (Appealed case from MCTC, Carigara, Leyte | 02-21-04 | 05-21-04 | BEYOND |
CASE NO. | TITLE | PENDING MOTION FOR RESOLUTION | DATE SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION | DUE DATE | REMARKS |
| |||||
CRIMINAL CASE: | |||||
| |||||
3037 | Pilandre | Opposition to the Formal filed by accused | 08-18-04 | 11-16-04 | BEYOND |
3072 | Seneneng, et. al. | Motion for Leave of Court to file Demurrer to evidence | 08-20-04 | 11-18-04 | WITHIN |
4357 | J. Eda'o | Motion to Quash | 11-12-04 | 02-10-05 | WITHIN |
4169 | M. Redulla, et al. | Motion to insert the true name of accused John Doe in the information and record | 01-21-04 | 04-20-04 | BEYOND |
| | | | | |
CIVIL CASE: | |||||
| |||||
2170 | F. Negado vs. P. Bough, et al. | Omnibus Motion to Declare defendant in default | 12-09-03 | 03-08-04 | BEYOND |
Manifestation w/ reiteration for appointment of receiver by plaintiff | 07-29-04 | 10-27-04 | BEYOND | ||
2047 | R. Salvacion vs. SPO1 T. Asis, et al. | Motion for Reconsideration by public defendant on the denial of the Motion to Dismiss
| 11-19-99
| 02-16-00
| BEYOND |
| | Manifestation and Motion by public defendant to immediately resolve MR and suspend PTC | 07-26-00 | 10-24-00 | BEYOND |
SP 775 | Adelaida Vallar Grapilon | Letter of Guardianship be issued | 10-26-04 | 01-25-05 | WITHIN |
2183 | F. Negado vs. S. Apostol | Motion to Dismiss | 08-17-04
| 11-15-04
| BEYOND |
2145 | Heirs of Rufino Serdoncillo vs. Rodolfo Constiniano | Motion to Dismiss | 10-08-04
| 01-06-05
| WITHIN |
2096 | W. Co vs. Sulpicio Lines | Demurrer to evidence | 06-19-04 | 09-17-04 | BEYOND |
1885 | Republic of the Phils. vs. R. Avila, et al. | MR on the denial of the Motion for attachment Supplemental MR - Joint Motion of plaintiff-intervenor' Ex parte Urgent joint motion to resolve joint motion | 03-07-03 | 06-05-03 | BEYOND |
2180 | Rizal Teachers Kilusang Bayan Credit vs. Teresa Juntilla | MR on the dismissal of appealed case | 11-20-04 | 02-18-05 | WITHIN |
2196 | Francisca Cañeda vs. Atty. Rafael Iriarte | Motion to Dismiss and Opposition to Motion to Dismiss | 11-13-04 | 02-11-05 | WITHIN |
2181 | Ernest Campos, et al. vs. Sps. Magdalino & Florida Arnosa, et al. | Motion to Declare defendants in Default filed by plaintiff | 07-06-04 | 10-04-04 | BEYOND |
SP 654 | Rosario P. Glena, et al. vs. Remegio S. Pilapil | Notice of Death w/ Motion for Substitution of Parties | 11-17-04 | 02-15-05 | WITHIN |
2039 | Urbida Sedillo vs. Sps. Rufino and Apolinaria Sedillo | Formal Offer of Exhibit filed by the defendant/Com-ment to defendant's formal offer of exhibit | 10-16-04 | 01-14-05 | WITHIN |
2150 | Nierna S. Doller vs. Arnold James Ysidoro | Ex Parte Motion to set case for Pre-Trial | 05-12-03 | 08-18-04 | BEYOND |
| Motion for Clarification | 08-18-04 | 11-26-04 | WITHIN |
In another Memorandum also dated January 5, 2005, the OCA directed Atty. Lolita Mercado, Branch Clerk of Court, to explain why Civil Case Nos. 2166, LRC No. 14, SP NO. 771, CAD 3-04 and LRC No. 18 have not been acted upon since the time of filing.[6]
- EXPLAIN the causes for delay in deciding the following cases within the 90-day reglementary period, to wit: Civil Case Nos. SCA 44, 1523 and 2171 and to DECIDE the said cases with dispatch, furnishing the Court copies of the decisions within five (5) days from the rendition/promulgation of judgment.
- INFORM the Court whether the following cases which are submitted for decision but still within the mandatory period to decide have already been decided to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 4265, 2366, 4007, 2675 and Civil Case Nos. 2097, SP 772 and 2193 and SUBMIT copies of the decisions.
- EXPLAIN the causes for delay in resolving the pending incidents/motions within the mandatory period in the following cases, namely: Criminal Case Nos. 3037, 4169 and Civil Case Nos. SP 775, 2145, 2180, 2196, SP 654 and 2039 and SUBMIT copies of the Orders taken thereon.
- EXPLAIN why the following cases have not been acted upon for a considerable length of time, to wit: Criminal Case Nos. 4125, 4140, 4156, 4191, 2906, 2985, 2003, 3015, 4247, 4248, 4254, 4273, 4290, 4302, 2882, 2891, 2892, 4327, 2714, 2817, 2045, 4228, 4364, 4372, 2825, 2633, 4337, 4159, 4095, 3036, and Civil Case Nos. 2103, 2137, 2049, 2040, 2080, 2147, 2038, 2129, 2062, 2123, SCA 28, 2169, 2165, 2173, 2127, 2157, SCA 61, SP 746, SP 735, SP 734, 1943, SCA 67, LRC 12, SCA 29, SCA 10, SP 743, SCA 39, SP 398, 2089, 2026, 2027, SP 749, SP 729, SP 728, SCA 42, SCA 41, 2078, SCA 36, SCA 47, C-1956, SCA 39 and 1083.
- IMMEDIATELY ACT on the following cases which remain dormant, to wit: Criminal Case No. 2003 and Civil Case Nos. 2049, 2147, 2038, 2169, 2165, 2173, 2127, 2157, 1943, SCA 67, SCA 29, SCA 10, SP 743, SCA 39, SP 398, 2089, SP 728 and 1083 and SUBMIT copies of the Orders taken thereon.
- DEVISE a records management system that will promote an efficient and effective tracking of movement of cases to ensure prompt action on all pending cases.[5]
For her part, Judge Blanco, in her letter dated March 22, 2005, explained that her failure to decide the cases within the reglementary period was due mainly to the lack of resource materials in her court. Thus, she often needed to go elsewhere just to research on the applicable jurisprudence. She likewise claimed that it took her sometime to review some of the records because the transcript of stenographic notes were mere carbon copies and thus were no longer legible.
- Civil Case No. 2166 Summons was issued immediately to the Sheriff upon receipt of this instant case with verbal instruction to contact the plaintiffs for the reproduction of the complaint and its annexes and to exact the necessary fees considering that the other defendants are residents of Kananga. However, the plaintiffs failed to coordinate with the Sheriff. The matter was brought to the attention of the Presiding Judge for issuance of a court order requiring the appearance of the parties. During the preparation of the 2nd Semestral Inventory for calendar year 2003, this case was among the list which the undersigned recommended for archiving. The same was not, however, acted upon by the Presiding Judge.
- LRC No. 14 Case was archived on 10 December 2004.
- SP No. 771 Case was archived on 10 December 2004.
- CAD Case No. 3-04 Set for hearing per Order dated 7 December 2004.
- LRC No. 18 Case suspended pending compliance by the petitioner to submit a third copy of the application for registration and supporting documents which have to be sent to the Land Registration Authority.[7]
In its resolution of July 18, 2005, the Court had the instant case docketed as a regular administrative matter, and required Judge Blanco and Atty. Mercado to manifest whether they are submitting the same on the basis of the pleadings filed. In her manifestation of August 30, 2005, and duly noted by the Court, Atty. Mercado manifested her conformity thereto. On the other hand, in her letter dated September 16, 2005, Judge Blanco stated that she was leaving everything to the Court's sound judgment and requested that her retirement benefits be approved and released in due time. The letter was likewise duly noted by the Court.
- JUDGE LOURDES M.G. BLANCO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Carigara, Leyte, be FINED in the amount of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) for her failure to decide and resolve cases within the 90-day reglementary period which shall be deducted from her retirement benefits.
- ATTY. LOLITA R. MERCADO, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 36, Carigara, Leyte, be FINED in the amount of ONE THOUSAND PESOS (P1,000.00) and WARNED that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely by the Court.
- The Judicial Audit Report be docketed as an administrative complaint against Judge Blanco and Atty. Mercado.
Rule 3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the 90-day period is mandatory.[9] The Court has consistently emphasized strict observance of this rule in order to minimize the twin problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts.[10]
Rule 3.08 - A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel.A judge has the primary responsibility of maintaining the professional competence of his staff and is charged with the administrative responsibility of organizing and supervising his court personnel to secure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business.[14]
Rule 3.09 - A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.
Sec. 9. Less Serious Charges - Less serious charges include:For Judge Blanco's gross inefficiency, we impose on her a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00), taking into consideration the mitigating circumstance that it was respondent judge's first offense.[22]
- Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
- Frequent and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness;
- Unauthorized practice of law;
- Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars;
- Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law;
- Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and simple misconduct. (Italics ours)
xxx xxx xxx
Sec. 11. Sanctions.xxx xxx xxx
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
- Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
- A fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000;
xxx xxx xxx