In the very recent case of ATTY. RAUL H. SESBREÑO vs. JUDGE IRENEO L. GAKO, JR., EN BANC, A.M. No. RTJ-08-2144, (Formerly OCA IPI No. 06-2417-RTJ, November 3, 2008, the Philippine Supreme Court reiterated the disciplinary consequences of delays caused by the inefficiency and laziness of trial judges.
It imposed a fine on respondent Judge IRENEO L. GAKO, JR. in the amount of P30,000.00 for undue delay in rendering a decision/resolution and violation of Court directives, the said amount to be deducted from his withheld retirement benefits.
The Philippine Constitution mandates all lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters within three (3) months from their date of submission.
Rules 1.02 of Canon 1 and 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct direct judges to administer justice impartially and without delay and to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87 provides:
3. Judges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from date of submission by all lower collegiate courts while all other lower courts are given a period of three months to do so. x x x.
Furthermore, SC Administrative Circular No. 1-88 states:
6.1 All Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts. x x x.
The respondent judge failed to act on a Motion for Reconsideration within three (3) months from the time said motion was submitted for resolution. His claim that the motion was not filed by the proper party is not a valid excuse to simply ignore said motion. Instead, he should have accordingly formally disposed of such motion. While it is true that respondent judge issued an Order voluntarily inhibiting himself from handling the case, it does not appear on record that the Executive Judge was furnished with a copy of the said order for appropriate action. Respondent judge cannot also justify his inaction by his inhibition since if it was really his intention to refrain from handling the case, he should not have acted on the subsequent Motion for Clarification/Reconsideration filed by the heirs of Patrocino Borromeo Herrera.
All told, the unreasonable delay of the respondent judge in resolving the motion submitted for his resolution clearly constituted a violation of complainant’s constitutional right to a speedy disposition of his case. Having failed to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration within the prescribed period of time, respondent judge is liable for undue delay in resolving a decision or order which is considered a less serious offense.
Regarding the charge of incompetency, it should be stressed that the duties and responsibilities of a judge are not strictly confined to judicial functions. He is also an administrator who must organize his court with a view to prompt and convenient dispatch of its business. As administrative officer of the Court, respondent judge should have required his clerk of court or any other court personnel to secure all the records of the case and keep the same intact although some of the volumes thereof would not be used in deciding the case. A judge is duty-bound to motivate his subordinates for the effective performance of the functions and duties of his office. In fact, the imperative and sacred duty of each and everyone in the court is to maintain its good name and standing as a temple of justice. Hence, any conduct, act or omission on the part of all those involved in the administration of justice, which would violate the norm of public accountability and diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary, shall be condemned and cannot be countenanced.
The respondent judge should also be held liable for failure to obey directives from the Office of the Court Administrator. As borne by the records, the two directives of the OCA, namely the 1st Indorsement dated January 19, 2006 and the 1st Tracer dated March 30, 2006, were received by respondent judge on February 9, 2006 and April 17, 2006, respectively. Still, he contumaciously refused to submit his comment. It was only upon the issuance by this Court of a Resolution dated January 24, 2007 directing him to show cause why he should not be administratively dealt with for refusing to submit his comment that respondent judge finally complied.
The Court found the explanation of respondent judge that he suffered a mild stroke to be insufficient to exonerate him, although it may mitigate his liability. While he may have been suffering from some ailment, he failed to show that it totally incapacitated him from complying with the lawful orders of the OCA. The failure of respondent judge to comply with the OCA’s directives to file comment to the letter-complaint against him manifested his indifference to the lawful directives of the Court.
A resolution of the Supreme Court requiring comment on an administrative complaint against officials and employees of the judiciary should not be construed as a mere request from the Court. Nor should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Respondents in administrative complaints should comment on all accusations or allegations against them in the administrative complaints because it is their duty to preserve the integrity of the judiciary. Moreover, the Court should not and will not tolerate future indifference of respondents to administrative complaints and to resolutions requiring comment on such administrative complaints.
A judge’s delay in rendering a decision or order and (2) failure to comply with this Court’s rules, directives and circulars constitute less serious offenses under Rule 140, Section 9 of the Rules of Court:
SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
xxx xxx xxx
4. Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars;
Section 11(B) of said Rule 140 provides the following sanctions for less serious offenses:
SEC. 11. Sanctions.
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
