In “Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City, A.M. No. 02-8-207-MTCC, July 27, 2009”, the Philippine Supreme Court, once again showing its seriousness to push trial judges to decide their pending cases with dispatch in order to give flesh to the constitutional doctrine of speedy trial, imposed an administrative fine on Judge Evelyn Gamotin-Nery in the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos for failure to decide cases within the reglementary period; imposed the same fine on Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr. for the same reason; and suspended for six months court staff Alfredo B. Magno Jr. for inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties.
The administrative matter, which showed how mismanagement and poor leadership in the courts could adversely affect the spirit and substance of equity and justice, stemmed from the August 19, 2002 Report on the judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted by the Audit Team of the Court Management Office in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 2 of Cagayan de Oro City.
The report disclosed that as of April 26, 2002, the trial court had a total case load of 1,654 cases, of which 155 cases have been submitted for decision. Of the 155 cases, 140 cases were already beyond the prescribed 90-day period to decide ordinary cases or the 30-day period to decide cases covered by summary procedure. There were also 10 cases with pending incidents for resolution which had not been acted upon and 428 cases had remained dormant for a considerable length of time either due to the trial court’s failure to take action on the pending incidents thereon or its failure to set the case for hearing. Six (6) civil cases had also never been acted upon despite the assignment of the said cases to the trial court as early as August 1997 to October 1999. In 9 criminal cases, the trial court failed to issue writs of execution relative to its orders of confiscation of the bail bonds of accused who jumped bail. The trial court also failed to archive (1) 125 criminal cases where the accused were not arrested despite the lapse of more than 6 months since the issuance of the warrants of arrest, and (2) 35 civil cases where the defendants were not served summons despite the lapse of more than 6 months from the issuance of summons.
The judicial audit report also showed that the new Executive Judge had relieved Mr. Alfredo B. Magno, Jr. as Clerk of Court of MTCC, Branch 2, due to the latter’s incompetence and inefficiency. The executive judge blamed Mr. Magno for the chaotic record management in the court. He alleged that during her initial inventory of cases, she found some records of pending cases missing and discovered them with the files of archived cases. She also discovered that some criminal cases which were supposed to have been long disposed of were not promulgated and were merely kept inside the filing cabinet. She alleged that Mr. Magno failed to submit on time the reports on 46 cases which were subject of ex-parte proceedings. She revealed that some records of pending cases were found bundled together with the records of decided cases.
Overall, the audit team concluded that the loss or erroneous filing of some case records and the failure to act on certain cases raffled to the court were caused by faulty records management. It appeared that Branch 2 did not maintain the prescribed docket books and instead used an ordinary logbook. The court merely relied on the case folders to determine the status of the cases. Consequently, the court personnel could not properly monitor the status of the cases pending before the court.
Upon an investigation conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OPCA), the Supreme Court held that it could not overemphasize the policy on prompt resolution of disputes. Indeed, justice delayed is justice denied. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of Article III, Section 16 of the Constitution. The honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved. Thus, judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence if public confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. There is no excuse for mediocrity in the performance of judicial functions. The position of judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the law and the Constitution in the discharge of official duties.
The Court stated that proper and efficient court management is the responsibility of the judge, and he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions. The responsibility of making a physical inventory of cases primarily rests on the presiding judge. He ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or resolution, and he is expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may act on them without undue delay. It is incumbent upon him to devise an efficient recording and filing system in his court so that no disorderliness can affect the flow of cases and their speedy disposition.
A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency or mismanagement of his court personnel since proper and efficient court management is his responsibility. Court personnel are not the guardians of a judge’s responsibilities. The efficient administration of justice cannot accept as an excuse the shifting of the blame from one court personnel to another. A judge should be the master of his own domain and take responsibility for the mistakes of his subordinates.
The Court stated that it was not unmindful of the burden of heavy caseloads heaped on the shoulders of every trial judge. But that cannot excuse them from doing their mandated duty to resolve cases with diligence and dispatch. Judges burdened with heavy caseloads should request the Court for an extension of the reglementary period within which to decide their cases if they think they cannot comply with their judicial duty. Hence, under the circumstances, all that said judge needed to do was request for an extension of time since this Court has, almost invariably, been considerate with regard to such requests. She did not avail of such remedy. A heavy caseload may excuse a judge’s failure to decide cases within the reglementary period but not their failure to request an extension of time within which to decide the case on time.
As to the liability of respondent clerk of court, it was undisputed that Mr. Magno was remiss in his duty and responsibility as clerk of court by failing to adopt a system of record management. His efficiency or inefficiency in the performance of his duties and responsibilities does not depend on how his predecessors performed theirs. As the custodian of the court’s funds, revenues, records, properties and premises, clerks of court perform very delicate functions and are liable for any loss, shortage, destruction or impairment thereof. It is presumed that they have familiarized themselves with the various statutes and administrative circulars pertinent to their functions to effectively discharge their duties and
responsibilities. Thus, the Court was not inclined to be sympathetic to Mr. Magno because he could not plead his lack of knowledge (or ignorance) as an excuse. He is presumed to know his functions and responsibilities.
The Court stressed that clerks of court are essential judicial officers who perform delicate administrative functions vital to the prompt and proper administration of justice. Their duty is, inter alia, to assist in the management of the calendar of the court and in all matters that do not involve the discretion or judgment properly belonging to the judge. They play a key role in the complement of the court, as their office is the hub of adjudicative and administrative orders, processes and concerns. As such, they are required to be persons of competence, honesty and probity; they cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs.
An important duty of the trial court is to conduct a monthly physical inventory of cases. Thus, on the clerks of court, as much as on the judges, rests the responsibility for ensuring that delay in the disposition of cases is kept to a minimum. Indeed, while the clerks of court are not guardians of a judge’s responsibility, they are expected to assist in the speedy dispensation of justice.
As branch clerk of court, Mr. Magno’s duties included conducting periodic docket inventory and ensuring that the records of each case were accounted for. It was likewise his duty to initiate and cause the search for missing records. It was incumbent upon him to ensure an orderly and efficient records management in the court. His failure to do so constitutes manifest inefficiency and ineptitude which cannot be countenanced.
As to the imposable penalty, the failure to render decisions and orders within the mandated period constitutes a violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge punishable under Section 11(B) of the same Rule, thus:
x x x x
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) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10, 000.00 but not exceeding P20, 000.00. (Emphasis supplied.)
x x x x
A respondent judge’s optional retirement does not warrant the dismissal of the administrative complaint filed against him while he was still in the service nor does it render said administrative case moot and academic. It does not preclude the finding of any administrative liability to which he shall still be answerable. Indeed, the Court retains its jurisdiction either to pronounce the respondent public official innocent of the charges or declare him guilty thereof.
Section 52, Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service classifies inefficiency and incompetence in the performance of official duties as a grave offense and punishable by suspension ranging from 6 months and 1 day to 1 year, for the first offense, and dismissal for the second offense.
