820 Phil. 547
CAGUIOA, J:
This Office finds such explanation to be unacceptable. A careful perusal of Chapter V of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC,[35] specifically the provisions on the conduct of raffle of cases, would reveal that it was never intended as an indispensable requirement that a substantial number of cases must have been filed in court before raffle of cases could be conducted. On the contrary, Section 2 thereof explicitly mandates that "[r]affling of cases shall be regularly conducted at two o'clock in the afternoon every Monday and/or Thursday as warranted by the number of cases to be raffled." Clearly, as can be easily inferred from the use of the words "shall" and "regularly," the raffle of cases should be mandatorily done on a regular basis and, much more, not only once but even twice a week depending on the number of cases to be raffled. Clearly, if the supposed substantial number of cases to be raffled affects the conduct of raffle as what respondent Judge Dating is trying to impress upon us, it is more of the fact that the conduct of raffle of cases in a week could be done twice if necessary, but never to altogether dispense with the raffle.The Court hereby adopts the above well-reasoned OCA recommendation.
Respondent Judge Dating averred that there was no urgency to conduct a raffle (as there was no case [presumably including the Special Civil Action No. 7788] which applied for a TRO, a special raffle, and the like). Again, respondent Judge Dating missed a substantial point on the matter. Assuming that, save for Special Civil Action No. 7788, there were no cases scheduled to be raffled on 17 March 2011, respondent Judge Dating was still obligated to cause the re-raffle of the quo warranto petition for that particular day. As provided under Section 8 of the same guidelines, "[w]here a judge in a multiple-branch court is disqualified or voluntarily inhibits himself/herself [as what Judge Racoma did], the records shall be returned to the Executive Judge and the latter shall cause the inclusion of the said case in the next regular raffle for re-assignment." The rule is so worded in a mandatory tenor for Executive Judges to require the inclusion of cases [inhibited by judges] in the next regular raffle for a re-assignment. Unfortunately, respondent Judge Dating apparently failed to grasp the true intent of that particular guideline.
Respondent Judge Dating rationalized the failure to immediately raffle the quo warranto petition on 17 March 2011 by pointing out that on that day, the judges would be travelling to attend the 1st General Assembly of Judges in Manila on 18 March 2011. Curiously though, he also averred that he conducted trial in the morning of 17 March 2011 for cases pending before Branch 40 (a Family Court) where he also serves as the Acting/Assisting Judge, and left his station for Manila in the afternoon. While it is commendable for respondent Judge Dating to still perform his duties as a Presiding Judge by holding trial in the morning, his exemplary action was virtually negated by the fact that he failed to perform his duties as an Executive Judge. This Office understands that respondent Judge Dating, together with the other judges of the RTC, Daet, Camarines Norte, would have to leave much earlier than the others due to the considerable distance of their stations from Manila. Still, this Office believes that respondent Judge Dating [and the other members of the Raffle Committee as well] could still have set aside even a few minutes of their precious time to conduct a raffle before leaving their station. Truth be told, the raffling of cases (minus the usual chats and exchange of pleasantries) could be accomplished in less than an hour, unlike court trials that invariably consume much of the time of the judges. As Executive Judge, it is the personal duty and responsibility of respondent Judge Dating to exercise supervision over the raffling of cases. Hence, he should have been prudent enough to find ways to minimize, if not totally avoid, delays in the raffle of cases.
This ideal condition of avoiding or minimizing delays in the raffle of cases all the more applies to respondent Judge Dating's situation in light of his admission that it is his "custom" to avail of his forfeitable leaves during the month of March. While attending seminars and conventions sanctioned by the Court may excuse the non-raffle of cases in courts on specific dates, the same could not be said when the non-raffle of cases was occasioned by the trial judges' forfeitable leave of absences. Unlike seminars and conventions which are sponsored and evidently scheduled by the Court [usually through the PHILJA], availing of forfeitable leaves is a personal act on the part of judges especially on choosing the dates which they usually prefer. While they are indeed entitled to such leaves, judges should so schedule the same in the most careful manner so as to prevent a hiatus in court proceedings. Speedy administration of justice should never play second fiddle to the personal comfort and caprice of those working in the judiciary, judges and/or personnel alike. In the case at bar, respondent Judge Dating scheduled his forfeitable leaves from 21 March 2011 to 31 March 2011. Knowing fully well that he would not be able to attend to his functions as chairperson of the Raffle Committee for the raffle dates of 24 March 2011 and 31 March 2011, and aware of the fact of the incoming seminar and convention that would coincide with the succeeding raffle dates (7 April 2011 and 14 April 2011) as well as of the observance by the nation of the Holy Week (21 April 2011 being a Maundy Thursday), respondent Judge Dating should have endeavored to wrap up all his pending work before going on a sabbatical. Unfortunately, instead of allotting just a few minutes in the afternoon of 17 March 2011 tore-raffle Special Civil Action No. 7788, he opted to forthwith leave his post to attend the General Assembly of Judges, then proceeded with his "customary" forfeitable leave of absences during the month of March, then attended the IBP National Convention in Subic, Zambales (7 to 9 of April 2011) and the Just Compensation Seminar sponsored by PHILJA in Tagaytay City, Cavite (14 to 15 April 2011), and then took a break during the Holy Week, before including on 28 April 2011 the quo warranto petition in the list of cases to be raffled, only to have it referred back to the court of origin in view of the pending motion for reconsideration of the inhibition order. What could have been done by respondent Judge Dating in less than an hour was apathetically delayed for six (6) long weeks.
Apropos his letter dated 17 March 2011 to then DCA Jesus Edwin Villasor and another letter addressed to then DCA Vilches expressing his supposed dilemma in the conduct of raffle of cases during his forfeitable leaves of absence and asking if the Vice-Executive Judge could conduct the same during such time, respondent Judge Dating seemed to flip-flop and contradict himself when he subsequently explained [in the instant matter] that during his absence, the Clerk of Court and the Vice-Executive Judge are fully knowledgeable of what to do pursuant to existing circulars and directives. These vacillations do not augur well for respondent Judge Dating for they only serve to highlight either his inconsistency in making a sound justification for his inefficiency to supervise the conduct of raffle of cases, or his tendency to put the blame on the other members of the Raffle Committee.
x x x x
For his failure to strictly adhere to the provisions of A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC, specifically the provisions on the raffle of cases, this Office finds respondent Judge Dating guilty of simple neglect of duty. Simple neglect of duty signifies a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. The Court has consistently held that mere delay in the performance of one's functions is considered as simple neglect of duty. Under Rule IV, Section 52 (B) of the Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service, it is a less grave offense punishable by suspension without pay for one (1) month and one (1) day to six (6) months. In order, however, not to disrupt the conduct of court proceedings, the imposition of a fine against respondent Judge Dating is appropriate under the circumstances.[36]