566 Phil. 149
As a result of the judicial and physical inventory
of cases conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Sharif Aguak
(Maganoy), Maguindanao, Branch 15, the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA) issued Memorandum dated March 24, 2003, directing
Judge Ismael G. Bagundang, then presiding judge of RTC-Br. 15, Sharif
Aguak, to:
(a) explain within fifteen (15) days from notice
why he failed to decide Criminal Cases Nos. 754, 830 and 1326, and
Civil Cases Nos. 241, 446 and 459 within the reglementary period, and
to resolve the Motion to Quash Search Warrant No. SW-02, and the Motion
to Dismiss in Civil Case No. 294, likewise within the reglementary
period;
(b) immediately decide/resolve the aforementioned criminal and civil cases including Civil Case No. MC-750, as well as the aforementioned two motions;
(c) take immediate action on —
(1) seventeen (17) criminal cases[3] referred for reinvestigation to the Office of the City/Provincial Prosecutor which remained inactive for quite some time;
(2) ninety-four (94) cases[4] which were not acted upon or were without further settings despite the lapse of a considerable length of time;
(3) two hundred and thirty-three (233) cases[5] with warrants of arrest or summons, in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 re Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases;
(4) fifty-five (55) cases[6] which were not initially acted upon since they were filed/raffled.
(c) take necessary steps
for the issuance of judgments and writs of execution on the confiscated
bail bonds posted by the accused in Criminal Cases Nos. 909, 975, 995,
1030, 1040, 1072, 1073, 1100, 1103, 1105, 1118, 1130, 1208, 1313, 1319,
1429, and 1434;
(d) submit the corresponding reports on his compliance with directives (c) and (d).
Office-in-Charge (OIC) Umaima L. Silongan, Interpreter III, RTC-Br. 15, Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao, was likewise directed to—
(a) find out and ascertain the actual status of the
following cases which were not presented to the audit team for
examination, to wit: Criminal Cases Nos. 1281, 1302, 1342, 1455, 1476,
1477, 1478, 1486, 1489, 1500, 1502, 1504, 1508, 1516 and 1549, and
Civil/Other Cases Nos. 49, 58, 63, 108, 137, 138, 143, 151, 154, 156,
170, 171, 174, 175, 182, 184, 189, 197, 203, 205, 210, 211, 213, 214,
219, 220, 256, 257, 264, 269, 271, 275, 276, 281, 282, 341, 348, 362,
365, 387, 411, 414, 419, 447, 448, 455, 461, 464, 472, 484, 486, 495,
498, 499, 501, 502, 503, 504, 509, 516, 522, SP-65, SP-98, SP-129,
SP-134, SP-185, SP-188, SP-194, SP-198, SP-202, SP-207, SP-208, SP-238,
SP-260, SP-261, SP-268, SP-275, SP-276, SP-280, SP-301, SP-305, SP-342,
SP-344, SP-347, SP-363, SP-367, SP-368, SP-369, SP-372, SP-373, SP-374,
SP-376, SP-377, SP-378, SP-379, SP-380, SP-382, SP-383, SP-384, SP-385,
SP-395, SP-398, SP-399, SP-416, SP-423, SP-435, SP-436, SP-437, SP-438,
SP-448, SP-453, SP-459, SP-468, SP-496, SP-505, SP-514, SP-528, SP-544,
SP-550, SP-584, SP-595, SP-596, SP-597, SP-598, SP-599, SP-616, SP-620,
SP-625, SP-633, SP-636, SP-647, SP-655, SP-663, SP-664, SP-665, SP-673,
SP-674, SP-676, SP-680, SP-682, SP-683, SP-684, SP-695, SP-712, SP-715,
SP-716, SP-719, SP-732, SP-736, SP-739, SP-779, SP-784, SP-789, SP-791,
SP-792, SP-793, SP-808, SP-809, SP-810, SP-811, SP-814, SP-823, SP-833,
SP-851, SP-853, SP-863, SP-864, SP-877, SP-880, SP-886, SP-894, SP-895,
SP-898, SP-911, SP-919, SP-924, SP-928, SP-930, SP-941, SP-944, SP-979,
SP-985, SP-986, SP-1000, SP-1013, SP-1016, SP-1023, SP-1033, SP-1034,
SP-1037, SP-1038, SP-1039, SP-1046, SP-1047, SP-1050, SP-1051, SP-1052,
SP-1054, SP-1056, SP-1062, SP-1066, SP-1067, SP-1078, SP-1079, SP-1093,
SP-1116, SP-1118, SP-1121, SP-1123, SP-1124, SP-1126, SP-1129, SP-1130,
SP-1143, SP-1144, SP-1147, SP-1148, SP-1149, SP-1151, SP-1154, SP-1158,
SP-1159, SP-1164 to SP-1182, SP-1184 to SP-1192, MC-58, MC-98, MC-115,
MC-150, MC-300, MC-410, MC-479, MC-480, MC-481, MC-482, MC-529, MC-637,
MC-639, MC-655, MC-688, MC-700, MC-701, MC-707, MC-720, MC-741, MC-760,
MC-761, MC-781, MC-788, MC-811, MC-829, MC-834, MC-837, MC-847, MC-854,
MC-860, MC-861, MC-865, MC-870, MC-880, MC-884, MC-887, MC-892, MC-896,
MC-900, MC-902, MC-904, MC-905, MC-906, MC-909, MC-914, MC-915, MC-916,
MC-917, MC-921, MC-922, MC-923, MC-924, MC-925 and MC-926, and submit a
report on her compliance, within thirty (30) days from notice;
(b) explain in writing, within thirty (30) days from notice, why
she failed to take appropriate actions on the following twenty-two (22)
civil cases since they were filed/raffled, to wit: Civil Cases Nos.
187, 249, 390, 429, 490, 491, 517, SP-381, SP-428, SP-441, SP-529,
SP-708, SP-771, SP-925, SP-1035, MC-712, MC-730, MC-789, MC-875,
MC-893, MC-918, and MC-919;
(c) immediately cease and desist from the practice of
re-numbering the cases that are raffled to RTC-Sharif Aguak, Branch 15,
from the Office of the Clerk of Court, RTC-Cotabato City, and retain
the original docket numbers assigned by the latter office;[7]
(d) submit a report on her compliance with directives (c) and (d), within 15 days from notice.
Judge Bagundang submitted his Compliance
[8]
in May 2005, attaching copies of the decisions and orders issued by him
in the cases mentioned in OCA Memorandum dated March 24, 2003. However,
he offered no explanation as to why he failed to decide, within the
mandatory period, the cases mentioned in directives (a) and (b). OIC
Silongan failed to comply as of that date.
Consequently, in a Memorandum dated June 1, 2005, the OCA recommended
that Judge Bagundang be fined twenty thousand (P20,000.00) pesos for
gross inefficiency for his failure to decide within the mandatory
period Criminal Case No. 754, and Civil Case Nos. 241, 446, 459 and
MC-750; for his failure to decide within the mandatory period the
pending motion in Civil Case No. 294; and, for his failure to submit
his explanation on his failure to decide or resolve the aforementioned
cases within the prescribed period. The OCA likewise recommended that
OIC Silongan be directed to explain her failure to comply with OCA
Memorandum dated March 24, 2003, and to submit her compliance within
fifteen (15) days from notice with warning that her failure to do so
shall be dealt with more severely.
In our Resolution dated July 11, 2005, we redocketed the OCA report as
a regular administrative matter against Judge Bagundang, and ordered
OIC Silongan to explain her failure to comply with OCA Memorandum dated
March 24, 2003, within fifteen (15) days from notice with warning.
In her Compliance dated August 30, 2005, OIC Silongan explained that
her failure to timely comply with the OCA Memorandum was due to the
following reasons: (1) the number of cases involved is substantial; (2)
she and Eduardo C. Gesulga, Jr., the staff assistant in charge of the
court docket, were the only ones doing the work; (3) Judge Bagundang
gave assignments in connection with his retirement; (4) the new
presiding judge gave her assignments as well; and (5) she has a pending
knee operation which necessitates weekly trips to Davao for medication.
OIC Silongan likewise reported on the status of the cases mentioned in
directives (a) and (b) of OCA Memorandum dated March 24, 2003. She
alleged that she complied with directives (c) and (d) on the date of
the judicial audit. In addition, she submitted a medical certificate
attesting as to her knee ailment.
In a Memorandum dated July 14, 2006, the OCA recommended that OIC
Silongan be fined P1,000.00 for negligence in the performance of her
duties and responsibilities as OIC Clerk of Court, with warning that a
repetition of the same infractions will be dealt with more severely.
We redocketed the OCA report as a regular administrative matter against
OIC Silongan and consolidated the same with A.M. No. RTJ-05-1937 in our
Resolution dated September 13, 2006.
We adopt the recommendations of the OCA.
Section 15(1), Article VIII of the
1987 Constitution provides:
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. (emphasis ours)
In connection therewith, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the
Code of Judicial Conduct provides:
A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
We have repeatedly ruled that the 90-day period is mandatory.
[9]
Any delay in the administration of justice, no matter how brief,
deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case.
[10]
Not only does it magnify the cost of seeking justice, it likewise
undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowering
its standards and bringing it to disrepute.
[11]
It is only in certain meritorious cases, i.e., those involving
difficult questions of law or complex issues or when the judge is
burdened by heavy caseloads, that a longer period to decide may be
allowed but only upon proper application made with the Supreme Court by
the judge concerned.
[12]
In the case at bar, Judge Bagundang failed to decide five (5) cases and
to resolve a pending motion within the mandatory period, and offered no
explanation for it. Worse, he submitted his compliance with the OCA
directives only two (2) years after they were issued against him.
Failure to decide even a single case within the required period, absent sufficient justification,
[13] constitutes gross inefficiency meriting administrative sanction.
[14] A member of the bench cannot pay mere lip service to the 90-day requirement; he should instead persevere in its implementation.
[15]
Regarding directives from the OCA, judges should treat them as if
issued directly by the Court and comply promptly and conscientiously
with them since it is through the OCA that this Court exercises its
constitutionally mandated administrative supervision over all courts
and the personnel thereof. Failure to do so constitutes misconduct and
exacerbates administrative liability.
As to the penalty, the
Rules of Court provides that undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge
[16] which merits the imposition of any of the following sanctions:
- 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.[17]
In the case at bar, suspension is not an option considering that Judge
Bagundang retired compulsorily on July 10, 2004. However, retirement
from the service does not preclude a finding of administrative
liability.
[18]
As recommended by the OCA, a fine of P20,000.00 is warranted under the
circumstances considering Judge Bagundang’s failure to explain his
failure to decide five cases and to resolve a pending motion within the
mandatory period, and his belated compliance with the OCA directives.
With respect to OIC Silongan, having been designated as acting clerk of
court, it was incumbent upon her to be cognizant of, and well-versed
with, the duties and responsibilities of a clerk of court. RTC-Sharif
Aguak, Maguindanao, is a single sala court. Under paragraph D (1.3),
Chapter VI of the
2002 Revised Manual for Clerks of Court, the clerk of court of a single sala court performs the functions
both of a Clerk of Court in a multiple sala court and those of a
Branch
Clerk of Court. The Clerk of Court of a multiple sala court is the
administrative officer of the court and has control and supervision
over court personnel as well as over all its properties and supplies.
[19] The
Branch
Clerk of Court is the extension of the Clerk of Court in the branch for
administrative purposes, and the custodian of all its properties and
premises.
[20]
In the case at bar, respondent Silongan failed to produce three hundred
and three (303) cases for examination by the audit team. She was
required to ascertain the actual status of these cases, and to submit a
report thereon, per OCA Memorandum dated March 24, 2003. She was
likewise required to explain why she failed to take appropriate actions
in twenty-two (22) civil cases since the cases have been raffled or
filed. It was not until the lapse of more than two years, however, or
in September 2005, that respondent Silongan submitted her compliance.
A clerk of court is the role model for all court employees under her
supervision. The position of clerk of court requires competence and
efficiency to insure the public’s confidence in the administration of
justice.
[21]
With respect to court records, the clerk of court must ensure that they
are safely kept and readily available upon request of the parties or
order of the court.
[22]
In the case at bar, respondent Silongan failed to produce 303 cases
upon audit. The fact that RTC-Sharif Aguak is a single sala court and
staffed by a relatively small number of personnel is of no moment. The
organizational composition of a court is dependent upon its particular
needs and jurisdiction, and is presumed to be sufficient for its
purposes. It is therefore incumbent upon the clerk of court to
supervise court personnel in such a way that they all function
effectively.
[23]
Respondent Silongan’s knee ailment mitigates her administrative
liability but it does not exonerate her. A clerk of court cannot be
permitted to slacken on her job under one pretext or another.
[24] We agree with the OCA that respondent Silongan should be fined P1,000.00 for neglect of duty.
IN VIEW WHEREOF, Retired Judge Ismael G. Bagundang is found guilty of
GROSS INEFFICIENCY, and
FINED Twenty Thousand pesos (P20,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Officer-in-Charge Umaima L. Silongan, Interpreter III, RTC-Br. 15, Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao, is found guilty of
NEGLECT OF DUTY, and
FINED
One Thousand pesos (P1,000.00), with WARNING that a repetition of the
same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, Corona, Azcuna, and
Leonardo-De Castro, JJ., concur.
[1] Formerly A.M. No. 05-6-360-RTC (
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in the RTC, Br. 15, Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao).
[2] Per records of the Office
of the Court Administrator, Umaima L. Silongan’s regular item in the
plantilla is Interpreter III, RTC-Br.15, Sharif Aguak, Maguindanao. She
has been designated as Officer-in-Charge of said court since 1995.
[3] Criminal Case Nos. 556, 772, 773, 774, 979, 997, 998, 999, 1000, 1001, 1050, 1056, 1061, 1186, 1230, 1416, and 1423.
[4] Criminal Case Nos. 758,
806 , 810, 812, 813, 814, 815, 816, 817, 851, 852, 853, 854, 894, 895,
896, 897, 912, 1075, 1076, 1099, 1115, 1129, 1205, 1234, 1235, 1243,
1259, 1356, 1410, 1435, 1471, 1483, 1496 and 1501, and Civil/Other
Cases Nos. 185, 226, 239, 243, 247, 258, 260, 270, 273, 274, 313, 346,
359, 378, 380, 381, 393, 405, 415, 423, 425, 428, 431, 437, 440, 450,
452, 454, 463, 466, 469, 470, 471, 478, 479, 493, 507, SP-200, SP-227,
SP-236, SP-251, SP-252, SP-273, SP-291, SP-292, SP-361, SP-397, SP-407,
SP-524, SP-530, SP-588, SP-648, SP-709, SP-772, SP-796, SP-862, SP-990,
SP-1014, MC-725 and MC-886.
[5] Criminal Case Nos. 767,
849, 869, 903, 909, 915, 916, 917, 923, 927, 929, 935, 937, 940, 942,
943, 944, 951, 952, 956, 965, 957, 958, 959, 960, 961, 962, 963, 964,
967, 970, 971, 974, 978, 983, 985, 986, 989, 991, 992, 995, 1002, 1003,
1004, 1005, 1006, 1007, 1008, 1009, 1010, 1011, 1012, 1015, 1018, 1019,
1020, 1025, 1026, 1027, 1028, 1030, 1031, 1033, 1034, 1040, 1047, 1048,
1050, 1052, 1058, 1059, 1061, 1062, 1063, 1064, 1065, 1071, 1072, 1073,
1078, 1079, 1080, 1082, 1085, 1089, 1094, 1100, 1102, 1103, 1105, 1107,
1108, 1117, 1118, 1119, 1132, 1145, 1150, 1152, 1161, 1164, 1166, 1167,
1168, 1177, 1179, 1182, 1185, 1187, 1196, 1197, 1204, 1208, 1210, 1224,
1226, 1228, 1237, 1238, 1239, 1241, 1247, 1248, 1249, 1250, 1251, 1252,
1253, 1255, 1256, 1263, 1266, 1271, 1274, 1276, 1277, 1279, 1283, 1284,
1286, 1291, 1292, 1295, 1296, 1301, 1313, 1314, 1316, 1317, 1318, 1319,
1321, 1322, 1323, 1324, 1325, 1329, 1331, 1332, 1333, 1335, 1339, 1341,
1342, 1349, 1350, 1351, 1352, 1354, 1357, 1358, 1359, 1361, 1362, 1365,
1372, 1373, 1375, 1377, 1378, 1381, 1383, 1384, 1385, 1387, 1389, 1394,
1400, 1401, 1402, 1403, 1404, 1405, 1407, 1408, 1409, 1411, 1417, 1419,
1420, 1421, 1422, 1424, 1426, 1428, 1429, 1433, 1434, 1438, 1439, 1440,
1457, 1458, 1459, 1460, 1461, 1462, 1463, 1464, 1467, 1469, 1470, 1473,
1496, 1517 and 1518, and Civil Cases Nos. 231, 253, 389, 438, 439, 443
and 458.
[6] Criminal Case Nos. 920,
928, 931, 932, 936, 938, 1068, 1069, 1070, 1158, 1180, 1288, 1330,
1366, 1367, 1368, 1369, 1370, 1371, 1386, 1443, 1444, 1445, 1446, 1447,
1448, 1449, 1460, 1463, 1498, 1510 and SW-01, and Civil Cases Nos. 187,
249, 390, 429, 490, 491, 517, SP-381, SP-428, SP-441, SP-529, SP-708,
SP-771, SP-925, SP-1035, MC-712, MC-730, MC-789, MC-875, MC-893, MC-918
and MC-919.
[7] RTC-Sharif Aguak, Branch
15, is temporarily stationed in Cotabato City and handles cases arising
not only from its own territorial jurisdiction but also those raffled
to it coming from the jurisdiction of RTC-Cotabato City, per Supreme
Court En Banc Resolution dated February 14, 1984 in A.M. No.
84-2-4284-RTC.
[8] Dated May 2, 2005.
[9] Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia-Blanco, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1941, April 25, 2006, 488 SCRA 109;
Seares v. Salazar, A.M. No. MTJ-98-1160, November 22, 2000, 345 SCRA 308.
[10] Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia-Blanco, supra at 121.
[11] Id.
[12] Seares v. Salazar, supra at 312.
[13] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 144, Makati City, A.M. No. 03-11-628-RTC, November 25, 2004, 444 SCRA 21.
[14] Re: Judicial Audit of the RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City, Presided Over by Hon. Ernesto R. Gutierrez, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1950, February 13, 2006, 482 SCRA 310; Re: Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 3, 5, 7, 60 and 61, Baguio City, A.M. No. 02-9-568-RTC, February 11, 2004, 422 SCRA 408;
Saceda v.Gestopa, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1303, December 13, 2001, 372 SCRA 193;
Dela Cruz v. Bersamira, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1567, July 24, 2000, 336 SCRA 353;
Report on the Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in the Metropolitan Trial Court, Br. 40, Quezon City, A.M. No. 98-2-22-MeTC, May 11, 2000, 331 SCRA 627.
[15] Pantig v. Daing, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-03-1791, July 8, 2004, 434 SCRA 7.
[16] RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 9, par. (1).
[17] RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 11, par. (B)(1).
[18] Office of the Court Administrator v. Fernandez, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1511, August 20, 2004, 437 SCRA 81;
Lilia v. Fanuñal, A.M. No. RTJ-99-1503, December 13, 2001, 372 SCRA 213.
[19] 2002 REVISED MANUAL FOR CLERKS OF COURT, Chapter VII, par. D (1)(1.1)(1.1.1), subparagraphs 1.1.1.1 and 1.1.1.2.
[20] 2002 REVISED MANUAL FOR CLERKS OF COURT, Chapter VII, par. D (1) (1.2), subparagraphs 1.2.1 and 1.2.2.
[21] Obañana, Jr. v. Ricafort, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1545, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 223.
[22] Re: Withholding of
All the Salaries and Allowances of Mr. Datu Ashary M. Alauya, Clerk of
Court, 4th Shari’a District Court, Marawi City, A.M. No. 02-4-03-SDC, May 27, 2004, 429 SCRA 202.
[23] Id.
[24] Obañana, Jr. v. Ricafort, supra note 21.