455 Phil. 212
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.:
Judge Jurao claims that she needs more time to study the cases, having filed her leave of absence from January to February 2000 to undergo a Loop Electro-Surgical Excision Procedure, and from June 19 to 30, 2000 to undergo a biopsy of her uterus and cervix. She contends that aside from having a caseload of more than 700 cases and presiding over two branches, she also presides over marathon hearings of a criminal case where she holds trial three to five days every last week of the month.
Case No. Case Title Branch 10 Criminal Cases 1. 5812 People v. Daniel 2. 4842 People v. Delgado, et al. 3. 98-10-6033
People v. Canlas, et al. 4. 99-2-6064 People v. Managuit 5. 5498 People v. Montañez 6. 5590 People v. Cordero 7. 5239 People v. Sayson, et al. Civil Cases 8. 2680 Barcemo v. Ortiz[1] 9. 2875 Montemayor, et al. v. Salvani 10. 3107 Ermeje, et al. v. Florese 11. 3117 Salvani v. Salvani 12. 3095
Hofileña v. Obsiana, et al.[2] Branch 12 Criminal Cases 13. 5657 People v. Raymundo 14. 5635 People v. Arzaga 15. 4472 People v. Jerome Tajanlangit 16. 4473
People v. Jerome Tajanlangit, et al. 17. 4480 People v. Emilio Tajanlangit 18. 5941 People v. Valente, et al. Civil Cases 19. 2980 Rafinan[3] v. Sartorio 20. 3065 Pahilanga v. Flores, et al.[4] 21. 3074 Occeña v. Cabrillos, et al. 22. 3077 Almoros, Sr., et al. v. Lamprea, et al. 23. 3098 Cañal, et al. v. Marzoña, et al. 24. 3092 M.B. Lending Corp. v. Siarot,[5] et al. 25. 3084 Rural Bank of Hamtic v. Mirasol, et al. 26. 3093 Canja, et al. v. Ballenas, et al. 27. 2912 Española, et al. v. Mission[6] 28. 3115 Fontanilla, et al. v. Veñegas, et al.
Basically, a case once raffled to a branch belongs to that branch unless reraffled or otherwise transferred to another branch in accordance with established procedure. When the Presiding Judge of that branch to which a case has been raffled or assigned is transferred to another station, he leaves behind all the cases he tried with the branch to which they belong. He does not take these cases with him even if he tried them and the same were submitted to him for decision. The judge who takes over this branch inherits all these cases and assumes full responsibility for them. He may decide them as they are his cases, unless any of the parties moves that his case be decided by the judge who substantially heard the evidence and before whom the case was submitted for decision. If a party therefore so desires, he may simply address his request or motion to the incumbent Presiding Judge who shall then endorse the request to the office of the Court Administrator so that the latter may in turn endorse the matter to the judge who substantially heard the evidence and before whom the case was submitted for decision.The Court, in a Resolution dated July 29, 2002, required Judge Jurao to explain her failure to decide five cases before Branch 10[8] and all the 16 cases before Branch 12, despite her assurance to finish all the cases of both branches listed in her letters dated July 24, 2000 and October 18, 2000. The Court further noted that she cannot invoke the Mabunay doctrine since the period within which she should have decided the cases had already lapsed when the new Presiding Judge assumed office.
. . . .On January 15, 2003, the Court referred the explanation of Judge Jurao to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation within 30 days from the receipt of the record.
- That her failure to decide . . . within the extended period of sixty (60) days from the time they were submitted for decision was due to the fact that contrary to her expectations that she could decide these cases within the extended period, the undersigned realized thereafter that she needed more time to study these cases considering that the case records are voluminous. Furthermore, as she was then handling two courts at that time, only fifteen (15) days of the month were devoted to the trial of and decision-making in cases pending before Branch 10 and the last fifteen (15) days of the month were devoted to those for Branch 12. Of the fifteen (15) days allotted to Branch 12 every month, three (3) to five (5) days were devoted to the trial of the celebrated cases of People v. Paloy, et al., which were tried everyday in the morning and afternoon at the request of the parties and in compliance with the directive of the Honorable Supreme Court to try said cases with deliberate dispatch.
In addition, the clerical staff of Branch 10 was undermanned as there was then no Clerk of Court and interpreter. The legal researcher in Branch 10 could not help the undersigned in the decision-making as he has to perform the functions of the Branch Clerk of Court and those of the interpreter. Branch 12, on the other hand, lacked an interpreter and one stenographer. The legal researcher of Branch 12, in addition to his research work, has to perform the duties of the interpreter. Due to the lack of stenographers, other stenographers became overworked and slowed down in their performance. These factors and the limited time allotted to each branch every month vis-à-vis the caseload of each branch which totaled to 700 cases more or less, adversely affected the efficiency and capability of the undersigned to decide these cases within the expected time frame.- The undersigned received a copy of the Resolution of the Honorable Supreme Court dated December 13, 2000, granting her an extension of sixty (60) days within which to decide these cases, sometime on January 15, 2001, when the Hon. Rudy P. Castrojas, now Presiding Judge of Branch 12, Regional Trial Court, San Jose, Antique, was already reporting to office. From then on, believing that she has no more authority to act over cases pending before Branch 12 of the RTC, San Jose, Antique, she did not decide the remaining cases pending for decision until the same were returned to her by said Court recently.
- That she humbly apologizes to this Honorable Court for her failure to decide the other remaining cases within the extended period granted her. She hopes to decide the same within a reasonable time considering the voluminous records involved.
It is clearly established here that Judge Jurao failed to decide Criminal Cases Nos. 4472, 4480, 5635, 5590, 5657, 5942, 6033 and Civil Cases Nos. 2680, 2912, 3074, 3077, 3095, 3107, 3115 and 3084 within the period granted her by the Court. To date, she has not decided Civil Cases Nos. 2912, 3074 and 3077 despite the lapse of two (2) years. Her explanation on the matter is not sufficient to exculpate her from administrative liability. It is settled that when health conditions, heavy workload or other factors hinder the judge, it is incumbent upon the judge to request the Court for additional time to decide the cases. While Judge Jurao had initially asked for an extension of time, she did not anymore ask the Court for additional time to decide these cases despite the lapse of the extension period. Worse, she declares in her Certificates of Service for the period January-December 2002 that she had no pending cases for decision, even if she in fact had.The findings and recommendation of the OCA are well taken.
Under Rule 140, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision and making untruthful statements in the Certificate of Service are considered less serious charges sanctioned by either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for one (1) to two (2) months and 29 days or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more than P19,999.00.
However, since there is no showing that Judge Jurao deliberately delayed disposition of these cases, we recommend that a fine of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000.00) be imposed upon her.
Also, while Judge Jurao claimed in her October 18, 2000 letter that she has already decided the 17 other cases, the date of the promulgation of the cases reveal that only 7 of the 17 cases were promulgated before said date (October 18, 2000), to wit:
Case No. Case Title Due Date Date of Request for Extension Branch 10 Crim. Cases 1. 5498 People vs. Montañez July 20, 2000 October 18, 2000 2. 5590 People vs. Cordero October 10, 2000 October 18, 2000 3. 5329 People vs. Sayson, July 21, 2000 October 18, 2000 et al. Civil Case 4. 2680 Barcemo vs. Ortiz October 23, 2000 October 18, 2000 Branch 12 Crim. Cases 5. 5657 People vs. Raymundo July 25, 2000 October 18, 2000 6. 5635 People vs. Arzaga July 21, 2000 October 18, 2000 7. 4472 People vs. October 19, 2000 October 18, 2000 Jerome Tajanlangit 8. 4473 People vs. Jerome October 19, 2000 October 18, 2000 Tajanlangit, et al. 9. 4480 People vs. Emilio Tajanlangit October 19, 2000 October 18, 2000 10. 5941 People vs. Valente, August 23, 2000 October 18, 2000 et al. Civil Case
11. 2912 Española, et al. October 6, 2000 October 18, 2000 vs. Mission
It is to be further noted that despite the fact that Judge Jurao was granted a 60-day extension of time within which to decide the 28 cases she listed in her July 24, 2000 letter, the respective dates of rendition of judgment on the cases, specifically the 11 cases with indicated due dates, reveal that, except for the one pending and two dismissed cases, all eight of the 11 cases were decided beyond the extended period of time granted her in the Resolution dated December 13, 2000, i.e., 60 days from their respective due dates.
Case No. Case Title Due Date Date of Promulgation Branch 10 Crim. Cases 1. 5812 People vs. Daniel September 8, 2000 2. 4842 People vs. Delgado, et al. September 29, 2000 Branch 10 Crim. Cases 3. 98-10-6033 People vs. Canlas, January 21, 2002 et al. 4. 99-2-6064 People vs. Managuit December 20, 2000 5. 5498 People vs. Montañez July 20, 2000 February 22, 2001 6. 5590 People vs. Cordero October 10, 2000 March 12, 2002 7. 5239 People vs. Sayson, July 21, 2000 July 4, 2001 et al. Civil Cases 8. 2680 Barcemo vs. Ortiz October 23, 2000 February 8, 2002 9. 2875 Montemayor, et al. October 11, 2000 vs. Salvani 10. 3107 Ermeje, et al. vs. Florese February 13, 2002 11. 3117 Salvani vs. Salvani April 30, 2001 12. 3095 Hofileña vs. Obsiana, et al January 14, 2002 Branch 12 Crim. Cases 13. 5657 People vs. Raymundo July 25, 2000 July 19, 2002 14. 5635 People vs. Arzaga July 21, 2000 September 30, 2002 15. 4472 People vs. Jerome October 19, 2000 Dismissed Tajanlangit 16. 4473 People vs. Jerome October 19, 2000 Pending Tajanlangit, et al. 17. 4480 People vs. Emilio October 19, 2000 Dismissed 18. 5941 Tajanlangit People vs. Valente, August 23, 2000 February 14, 2003 et al. Civil Cases 19. 2980 Rafinan vs. Sartorio October 13, 2000 20. 3065 Pahilanga vs. Flores,
September 18, 2000 et al. 21. 3074 Occeña vs. Cabrillos, March 10, 2003 et al. 22. 3077 Almoros, Sr., et al February 24, 2003 vs. Lamprea, et al. 23. 3098 Cañal, et al. vs. September 28, 2000 Marzoña, et al. 24. 3092 M.B. Lending Corp. October 23, 2000 vs. Siarot, et al. 25. 3084 Rural Bank of September 4, 2002 Hamtic vs. Mirasol, et al. 26. 3093 Canja, et al. vs. September 14, 2000 Ballenas, et al. Branch 10 Civil Cases 27. 2912 Española, et al. vs. October 6, 2000 March 11, 2003 Mission 28. 3115 Fontanilla, et al February 24, 2003 vs. Veñegas, et al.