537 Phil. 1
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
CASE STATUS | CRIMINAL | CIVIL | TOTAL |
| | | |
Cases submitted for decision | 42 | 74 | 116 |
Cases with pending Motion/ Incident for Resolution | 9 | 51 | 60 |
Summons/Warrant of Arrest | 2 | 2 | 4 |
Arraignment | 9 | - | 9 |
For Pre-trial | 19 | 8 | 27 |
On Trial | 72 | 50 | 122 |
For Compliance | 1 | 6 | 7 |
No Further Action | 2 | 72 | 74 |
No Further Setting | - | 4 | 4 |
No Initial Action | - | 10 | 10 |
Suspended Proceeding | 1 | 3 | 4 |
Archived | 2 | 1 | 3 |
Newly Filed | - | 2 | 2 |
Disposed/Dismissed | 5 | 3 | 8 |
TOTAL | 164 | 286 | 450 |
The aforementioned data undeniably shows the snail pace movement of cases in the court. Out of the 450 pending cases, 25.77% or 116 are submitted for decision, with only 4 cases still within the 90 day period to decide. Likewise, 13.33% of the total caseload have pending motions or incidents for resolution, majority of which are now beyond the mandatory period to resolve. Additionally, 74 cases or 16.44% have not been acted upon for a considerable length of time.In a Memorandum dated August 30, 2004[5] the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge Magallanes to:
We have noted that criminal cases which have been submitted for decision as early as 1995 or 1996 have not been decided, thus depriving the accused of their constitutional right to a speedy trial. The transcript of stenographic notes are attached to the record, hence, there is no reason why Judge Magallanes cannot decide the said cases.
During the exit conference, Judge Magallanes explained that his health problems contributed to the delay in the disposition of the cases. However, he claims that he has not requested extensions of time to decide the said cases. Considering that the cases have long been due for decision/ resolution, the team advised Judge Magallanes to begin deciding and resolving the cases. In this regard an assisting judge may be designated to try and hear cases pending thereat. Judge Magallanes should be given an unextendible period of six (6) months to decide the 116 cases submitted for decision and two (2) months to resolve the pending motions/incidents in 60 cases.
Judge Roberto S. Chiongson, RTC, Branch 50, who has the least caseload among the judges in Bacolod City, with only 86 pending cases as of March 2004 should be designated Assisting Judge of the RTC, Branch 54.[4]
A. EXPLAIN the causes of the delay in deciding the following cases within the 90-day reglementary period, to wit: Criminal Cases Nos. 13522, 13646, 13814, 10492, 10493, 99-19820, 99-19991, 99-19992, 99-20228, 00-20655, 00-20656, 00-20962, 97-18359, 97-18378, 97-18480, 97-18629, 98-19176, 98-19223, 98-19257, 95-15492, 94-15857, 94-15864, 94-16188, 94-16238, 94-16529, 95-17392, 04-25980, 04-25981, 04-25982, 01-22877, 02-23380, 02-23381, 02-23382, 02-23383, 02-23384, 03-24939, 03-24940, 03-24941, 03-24942, 03-24943, 03-24944, CR No. 93-14900; Civil Cases Nos. 03-12108, 03-12133, 04-12210, CAR Cases Nos. 11-118, 97-9712, 94-8588, 97-9758, SP00-929, 03-12051, 6380, 6411, 98-10355, 03-11883, 03-11882, 02-11861, 00-11334, 01-11497, 01-11379, 94-8294, 01-11373, 02-11802, 02-11750, 02-11660, 99,10986, 97-9907, 86-4163, 98-10516, 00-11038, 03-12113, 7699, 93-8128, 93-8046, 90-5990, 96-9467, 94-8643, 96- 9375, 94-8646, 97-9680, 98-10246, 98-10381, 98-10373, 98-10296, 4128, 3846, 7108, 00-11280, 00-11281, 00-11282, 98-10181, 6492, 6540, 6776, 4366, 4265, 4862, 03-11882, 02-11640, 02-11641, 98-10348, 01-11510, CAR 96-11, CAR 96-10, CAR 00-29, CAR 00-21, CAR 9713, CAD 98-768, CAD 99-1036, CAD 99-1036, [sic] CAD 00-1156, CAD 01-1297 and to DECIDE the said cases within six (6) months from notice.Meanwhile, by virtue of Administrative Order No. 134-2004 [7] dated August 31, 2004, the Court designated Judge Roberto S. Chiongson, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 50, Bacolod City, as Assisting Judge of the RTC, Branch 54, same court, to try and decide all pending and newly filed cases thereat; and directed Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes to cease and desist from trying cases in his sala for six months and devote his time in deciding all cases submitted for decision and in resolving cases with pending motions.
B. INFORM the Court whether the following cases which are considered submitted for decision but still within the mandatory period to decide have already been decided, namely: Criminal Case No. 03-25185 and Civil Cases Nos. 04-12278, CAD 02-1468 and CAD 03-1683 and to SUBMIT copies of the decision.
C. EXPLAIN the causes of the delay in resolving within the 90-day period, the motions/incidents in the following cases, viz: Criminal Cases Nos. 11419, 11488, 97-18434, 98-11826, 98-19298, 98-19397, 97-18129, 96-17781, 03-24458; Civil Cases Nos. SP 98-383, SP 02-1222, 96, 9403, SP 03-1257, SP 01-1020, 02-11817, 99-11004, 02-11745, 01-11470, 02-11607, 03-11895, 03-11917, 03-12145, 98-10298, 99-10236, 98-10452, 01-11146, 01-11420, 00-11216, 03-12188, 00-11167, 97-9866, 00-11129, 95-1829, 01-11417, 01-11530, 97-10027, 8462 2939, 99-10968, 7699, 93-8045, 96-9467, 98-10510, 92-7213, 01-022, 95-9095, 00-11280, 00-11281, 00-11282, 00-11158, 97-9838, 02-11858, 02-11671, 03-12066, 99-10726, 00-11104, 02-11812, SP-02-1199, CAD 01-338, SP 1227 and to RESOLVE the pending motions within two (2) months from notice and to submit copies of your resolutions.
D. INFORM the Court whether the pending motion/incidents in the following cases which are still within the mandatory period to resolve, have already been resolved, namely: Civil Cases Nos. SP No. 04-69, 04-12344, 03-12086, 97-9830 and SP 01-1132 and to SUBMIT copies of the orders.
E. EXPLAIN why the following cases have not been acted upon for a considerable length of time, to wit: Civil Cases Nos. SP 95-053, SP 97-259, 95-16873, 96-17512, 00-11163, 01-11514, 00-11127, 98-1017, SP 7122, SP 7463, SP 96-105, SP 94-8355, SP 7245, SP 94-8553, SP 95-8753, SP 96-088, SP 98-414, SP 98-542, SP 96-128, 96-9317, 00-11344, 93-8152, 98-10186, 00-11237, 6853, 99-10827, 5904, 04-12195, 03-12014, 03-12165, 03-12032, 03-12031, 02-11682, 02-11686, 97-9962, 97-9993, 95-8924, 00-11183, 98-10413, 98-10360, 98-10144, 00-11083, SP Agr. Case 97-14, CAR 96-09, CAR 94-03, SPL DAR 99-20, CAR 95-06, SP 94-8694, SP 9840, SP 6423, SP 344, SP 4916, SP 96-183, SP 98-392, SP 7772, SP 00-899, CAR 01-030, CAD 03-1760, CAD 01-1415, CAD 01-1347, CAD 98-888 and to IMMEDIATELY ACT on the said cases and to INFORM the Court of the action taken thereof.
and directed Atty. Arinday to:
A. EXPLAIN why the following cases where you were authorized to receive evidence ex- parte have not been acted upon despite the lapse of a considerable length of time, namely: Civil Cases Nos. SP No. 99-706, 95-9144, SP No. 5065, SP No. 02-1161, SP No. 01-1113, SP No. 00-877, CAD 00-1115, CAD 01-1316, CAD 99-901, CAD 02-1611 and CAD 02-1519.
B. EXPLAIN why the following cases have not been acted upon since the time of filing, namely: SP No. 00-832 and SP No. 00-838 and Civil Cases Nos. 99-10704, 03-1286, 02-11678, 03-11948, 93-7999, 04-12275, 99-10834 and 02-11701 and to IMMEDIATELY ACT on the same.
C. Take appropriate action on the following cases where there is no further setting in the court calendar for a considerable length of time, to wit: Civil Cases Nos. 02-11614, 03-12000, 03-12104 and Spl. Agrarian Case No. 03-040.
D. SUBMIT a Report on the action taken in Civil Cases Nos. SP No. 04-69, 04-12344, 03-12086, 97-9830 and SP 01-1132; Civil Cases Nos. SP 95-053, SP 97-259, 95-16873, 96-17512, 00-11163, 01-11514, 00-11127, 98-1017, SP 7122, SP 7463, SP 96-105, SP 94-8355, SP 7245, SP 94-8553, SP 95-8753, SP 96-088, SP 98-414, SP 98-542, SP 96-128, 96-9317, 00-11344, 93-8152, 98-10186, 00-11237, 6853, 99-10827, 5904, 04-12195, 03-12014, 03-12165, 03-12032, 03-12031, 02-11682, 02-11686, 97-9962, 97-9993, 95-8924, 00-11183, 98-10413, 98-10360, 98-10144, 00-11083, SP Agr. Case 97-14, CAR 96-09, CAR 94-03, SPL DAR 99-20, CAR 95-06, SP 94-8694, SP 9840, SP 96-183, SP 98-392, SP 7772, SP 00-899, CAR 01-030, CAD 03-1760, CAD 01-1415, CAD 01-1347, CAD 98-888, SP No. 00-832 and SP No. 00-838 and Civil Cases Nos. 99-10704, 03-1286, 02-11678, 03- 11948, 93-7999, 04-12275, 99-10834 and 02-11701; Civil Cases Nos. 02-11614, 03-12000, 03-12104 and Spl. Agrarian Case No. 03-040 in chronological order as stated in the directive attaching copies of the Order.[6]
EVALUATION:We approve the recommendations of the OCA except as to the penalty.
A. JUDGE DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES:
The explanations offered by Judge Magallanes for the delay in the disposition and resolution of cases pending in his sala do not exonerate him from any administrative liability. His health problems which impaired his ability to cope with his judicial functions only mitigate liability. Judge Magallanes, aware of his physical adversities, should have asked from the Court extensions of time to decide and resolve cases.
The Court has, time and again, held that when circumstances arise which prevent a judge from deciding a case or an incident thereof within the reglementary period, all he has to do is file an application with the Court for a reasonable extension of time within which to decide or resolve the same. There is no showing that Judge Magallanes has done so. While he has reported his health problems and difficulties to the Court in a letter of August 2, 2001, he did not formally request extensions of time to resolve cases pending in his court, and has failed to decide 54 cases submitted for decision, resolve the pending motions in 49 cases and to act on 45 dormant cases. Available records show that cases submitted for decision as early as 1991 which he inherited from his predecessor remain undecided. The Monthly Report of Cases submitted to the Statistical Reports Division, CMO, OCA, reveal that the inherited cases were not decided due to incomplete transcript of stenographic notes which could have been resolved had Judge Magallanes directed the stenographers concerned to submit their TSN. Also, there were some cases submitted for decision before him which have been pending since 1993, 1994, and 1995. Despite the directive of the Court, he failed to prioritize these cases which undoubtedly denied the parties their constitutional right to a speedy trial. Ten (10) years of waiting for the final disposition of their case is certainly justice delayed, justice denied.
It must be emphasized that decision making, among other duties, is the primordial and most important duty of a member of the bench. It is the ultimate determination of the rights/guilt of the parties/accused. Allowing the cases to sleep in the court's docket is rendering injustice to the litigants and the judiciary's commitment to provide litigants their constitutional right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of their cases.
Judge Magallanes was given six (6) months to decide all 112 cases submitted for decision. An Assisting Judge was designated to conduct trial in his court so he, as regular judge could devote his time in resolving these cases. He was also granted additional period to decide when Judge Chiongson's designation as assisting judge continued for 9 months from the expiration of the 6-month grace period.
Records also disclose that Judge Magallanes falsified his Monthly Certificate of Service for the months of September 2005 and October 2005 by stating that "all special proceedings, applications, petitions, motions, and all civil and criminal cases which have been under submission for decision or determination for a period of ninety (90) days or more have been determined and decided on or before" the month concerned. However, the Monthly Report of Cases for the months of September 2005 and October 2005 submitted to the Statistical Reports Division, CMO, OCA, reveal that there were cases submitted for decision but not decided in the months involved. In September 2005, Judge Magallanes had 76 cases submitted for decision. His Certificate of Service however attested that all cases submitted for decision have been decided on or before the 30th of September 2005.
x x x x
In fine, Judge Magallanes has been dishonest and grossly inefficient in the performance of his judicial functions. He failed to live up to the exacting standard of conduct demanded by the office he had sworn to serve. Consequently, he can be administratively sanctioned for these infractions.
Undue delay in rendering a decision or order and untruthful statements in the certificate of service are classified as less serious charge for which a penalty of 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 P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00 may be meted out.
Considering the mitigating circumstance of very poor health condition, a penalty of fine in the amount of P20,000.00 is commensurate. Judge Magallanes should be directed to decide and resolve the remaining cases subject of the audit report within 120 days from notice and submit to the Office of the Court Administrator an Accomplishment Report.
B. ATTY. GIA L. ARINDAY
The failure of Atty. Arinday to immediately take initial action on cases raffled to the court, calendar cases and monitor cases where she was authorized to receive evidence ex parte displays lack of diligence in the discharge of her administrative functions. Although the delay in the disposition of cases in the court cannot solely be attributed to her, it was her duty to remind the judge of matters that need immediate action. She cannot hide under the cloak of the judge's inefficiency.
x x x x
In fine, Atty. Arinday has been negligent in the performance of her duties. She should be reminded to be more prudent in the discharge of her functions and warned that a repetition of the same in the future will be dealt with severely.
RECOMMENDATION:
IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, we respectfully submit for the consideration of the Honorable Court the following recommendations:
- JUDGE DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City be FINED in the amount of TWENTY THOUSAND PESOS (P20,000.00) for his failure to decide and resolve cases within the 90-day reglementary period and for making untruthful statements in his Certificate of Service.
- JUDGE DEMOSTHENES L. MAGALLANES be DIRECTED to decide/resolve the remaining cases submitted for decision/ resolution within 120 days from notice and submit to the Court through the Office of the Court Administrator a copy of the decision/orders taken thereon.
- ATTY. GIA L. ARINDAY Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City be REMINDED to be more prudent in the discharge of her functions and duties and WARNED that a repetition of the same will be dealt with severely by the Court.
- The Judicial Audit Report in the RTC, Branch 54, Bacolod City dated August 24, 2004 be docketed as an administrative complaint against Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes and Atty. Gia L. Arinday.