In the recent decision of the Philippine Supreme Court entitled RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, JIMENEZ-SINACABAN, MISAMIS OCCIDENTAL/JUDGE PRISCILLA HERNANDEZ, EN BANC and PER CURIAM, A.M. No. 03-7-170-MCTC, July 14, 2009, the Court found respondent Judge Priscilla T. Hernandez, Presiding Judge of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Jimenez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental liable for gross neglect of judicial duty and gross inefficiency. She was ordered DISMISSED from the service, with forfeiture of all benefits except accrued leave credits, if any, and with prejudice to re-employment in any government branch or instrumentality, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Further, for her repeated violations of Supreme Court directives and Section 14 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, she was fined P20,000. Finally, she was fined P5,000 for her violation of Canons 1, 11, 12 and Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility, with a stern warning that commission of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely.
Let us digest the case for purposes of legal research of the visitors of this blog.
On February 26 to 28, 2003, a judicial audit of the Fourth Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Jimenez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental, presided by respondent Judge Priscilla Hernandez, was conducted. As a result, a resolution dated August 13, 2003 was issued directing respondent to submit her explanation on her failure to regularly report for work at the 4th MCTC, Jimenez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental and her failure to resolve, decide or otherwise dispose many pending cases and incidents pending in her sala.
However, respondent failed to comply with these directives. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) issued a memorandum dated October 18, 2004 directing her anew to comply with the same but there was no response. In this Court’s resolution dated October 3, 2005, she was directed to show cause why she should not be administratively dealt with or held in contempt for failure to comply with the August 13, 2003 resolution.
Meanwhile, on October 10, 2005, a second audit was conducted on the 4th MCTC of Jimenez-Sinacaban, as well as on the 5th MCTC of Clarin-Tudela, Misamis Occidental where respondent was also Acting Presiding Judge. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) reported its findings in its Memorandum dated January 6, 2006 that out of the 130 caseload of the court at the time of the second audit, 10 criminal and civil cases had unresolved pending incidents, 27 criminal and civil cases were still undecided despite the lapse of the 90-day reglementary period, one civil case which the court failed to take any action from the time of its filing and 47 criminal and civil cases without further action or setting for a considerable length of time or a total of 85 problematic cases. Thus, only 34.616% of cases were moving and 65.384% of these cases needed the required appropriate action from respondent.
Respondent was complemented with seven staff members headed by a Court Interpreter who acted as the court’s Officer-in-Charge.
In a letter dated April 14, 2005, Atty. Benjamin C. Galindo, then a Sangguniang member of the Municipality of Jimenez during the May 2004 elections, reminded the OCA that the audit of the MCTCs in Jimenez-Sinacaban and Aloran-Panaon was made upon the request of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (Misamis Occidental Chapter) wherein respondent was directed to resolve some 70 pending cases in her sala which remained undecided long after the 90 day period. Even the Sangguniang Bayan passed a resolution requesting respondent to decide the pending cases which remained unheeded.
The OCA recommended that respondent be dismissed on grounds of gross incompetence, inefficiency, negligence and dereliction of duty and that her designation as Acting Presiding Judge of the 5th MCTC of Clarin-Tudela be revoked. Consequently, pursuant to Administrative Order No. 05-2006, respondent’s designation was revoked.
Despite a long interregnum, respondent still did not comply with the Court’s directives. Because of such inaction, the OCA, in its memorandum dated August 9, 2007, not only reiterated its earlier recommendation for respondent’s dismissal but also recommended her immediate suspension pending the resolution of this administrative matter. As a result, the Court suspended respondent in a resolution dated October 10, 2007.
Respondent filed a motion for reconsideration dated November 19, 2007. She admitted her culpability in the delay of the disposition of cases but claimed as contributory factors the volume of her work and designations in other courts. She begged for the Court’s compassion in the resolution of her motion. Her motion was denied in a resolution dated January 28, 2008.
The Supreme Court approved the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
Respondent continually failed to comply fully with the Court’s directives. After several orders and reminders to submit her explanation, her one and only move was to file a two-page motion for reconsideration of the resolution ordering her suspension.
Respondent admitted her culpability in the delay of the disposition of the cases as reported, and begged for the court’s compassion to consider the volume of her work as contributory factor for the delay. She stated that, aside from presiding at 4th MCTC, Jimenez, Misamis Occidental, she was also designated presiding judge of 5th MCTC Clarin-Tudela from August 1995 to February 2005, presiding judge of Branch III MTCC Ozamiz City on January 27, 1998 until December 2000, and Executive Judge of MTCC Ozamiz City from November, 1998 to November, 2000. She claimed that after the revocation of all her designations to preside over the other courts, she had been working to unclog the caseload of the 4th MCTC, Jimenez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental and that she had decided seventy-seven (77) cases over the period stated therein.
The Court noted that as early as August 2003, it had already ordered respondent to explain and resolve the problems in her court. But it was only in November 2007, or three long years after when the Court finally suspended her, that she had decided to give the Court a two-page motion for reconsideration. She never complied with the Court’s directives, not even partially, and did not offer any reason for her non-compliance. She made a bare statement that she allegedly decided 77 cases from November 2006 to October 2007 but did not elaborate what these cases were.
The Court stated that it would not tolerate the indifference of respondent judges to resolutions requiring their written explanations. An order or resolution of this Court must be complied with completely, adequately and fully. To do otherwise would show disrespect to the Court, an act only too deserving of reproof.
The Court further noted that the findings of the OCA showed that respondent was clearly remiss in the performance of her judicial duties. Despite the lapse of more than two years from the time the first audit was made, there was no improvement in the resolution of cases in her sala. At the time of the second audit, she had only 130 pending cases (indeed a light load by the usual standards) but more than half of those (65.384% or 85 cases) were unacted upon.
The Court continued that the respondent had admitted that she was in delay but cited as an excuse her designations in other courts resulting in a heavy caseload. This explanation was far from acceptable. It held that she could not hide behind the much-abused excuse of heavy caseload to justify her failure to decide and resolve cases promptly. She could have asked the Court for a reasonable period of extension to dispose of the cases but she did not.
The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower courts shall be decided or resolved within 90 days from the time they are submitted for decision. Respondent repeatedly ignored this mandate. She also violated Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct which requires judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
Failure to comply within the mandated period constitutes a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to a speedy disposition of their cases. The Court has always considered a judge’s delay in deciding cases within the prescribed period of three months as gross inefficiency. It undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute. Undue delay cannot be countenanced at a time when the clogging of the court dockets is still the bane of the judiciary. The raison d' etre of courts lies not only in properly dispensing justice but also in being able to do so seasonably.
Additionally, the Court noted that respondent had been repeatedly asked to explain the whereabouts of certain missing case records. She never bothered to do so and worse, it took her five years to return such records. Section 14 of Rule 136 of the Rules of Court expressly provides that “no record shall be taken from the clerk’s office without an order of the court except as otherwise provided by these rules.” Further, Article 226 of the Revised Penal Code punishes any public officer who removes, conceals or destroys documents or papers officially entrusted to him. With such heavy responsibilities, judges are therefore expected to exercise utmost diligence and care in handling the records of cases.
Considering the gravity of respondent’s omissions and the absence of any explanation whatsoever on her part, her dismissal from the service was called for. The administration of justice demands that those who don judicial robes be able to comply fully and faithfully with the task set before them. In this regard, respondent miserably failed. The wheels of justice would hardly move if respondent were allowed to continue working in the judiciary. Therefore, as recommended by the OCA, after a thorough judicial audit, and considering the unrebutted audit reports on record, the penalty of dismissal from the service was in order.
For her repeated violations of Supreme Court directives and rules (a less serious offense punishable with suspension for not less than one month nor more than three months or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000), she was fined the maximum amount of P20,000.
Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, the administrative case against respondent as a judge based on grounds which were also grounds for the disciplinary action against members of the Bar, shall be considered as disciplinary proceedings against such judge as a member of the Bar.
Violation of the fundamental tenets of judicial conduct embodied in the Code of Judicial Conduct constitutes a breach of Canons 1 and 11 of the Code of Professional Responsibility (CPR):
CANON 1 — A LAWYER SHALL UPHOLD THE CONSTITUTION, OBEY THE LAWS OF THE LAND AND PROMOTE RESPECT FOR LAW AND FOR LEGAL PROCESSES.
CANON 11 — A LAWYER SHALL OBSERVE AND MAINTAIN THE RESPECT DUE TO THE COURTS AND TO JUDICIAL OFFICERS AND SHOULD INSIST ON SIMILAR CONDUCT BY OTHERS.
The Court held that a judge who falls short of the ethics of the judicial office tends to diminish the people’s respect for the law and legal processes. She also fails to observe and maintain the esteem due to the courts and judicial officers. A magistrate’s duty to uphold the integrity of the judiciary at all times.
Respondent’s delay also runs counter to Canon 12 and Rule 12.04 of the CPR which provides:
CANON 12 — A LAWYER SHALL EXERT EVERY EFFORT AND CONSIDER IT HIS DUTY TO ASSIST IN THE SPEEDY AND EFFICIENT ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
xxx xxx xxx
Rule 12.04 – A lawyer shall not unduly delay a case, impede the execution of a judgment or misuse Court processes.
For such violation of Canons 1, 11, 12 and Rule 12.04 of the CPR, she should be further fined the amount of P5,000, the Court held.
