ManilaEN
BANC
RE:
REPORT ON THE
JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED
IN THE REGIONAL
TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 27, NAGA CITY.chanrobles virtual law library
A.
M.
No. 96-11-402-RTC
August
21, 1997
R
E S O L U T I O N
REGALADO,
J.:
In a resolution of the
Court En Banc dated December 3, 1996,[1]
Branch Clerk of Court Amelia B. Vargas of Branch 27, Regional Trial
Court
of Naga City, Albay was directed to show cause why she should not be
administratively
dealt with for submitting a false monthly report of cases to this Court.
Said resolution of
the Court was issued as a consequence of the audit and physical
inventory[2]conducted
by a Judicial Audit Team from the Office of the Court Administrator of
the dockets of certain lower courts in the provinces of Camarines Sur
and
Albay from September 24 to October 4, 1996.
A scrutiny of the records
of cases of Branch 27 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City,
Albay
revealed that said court had a caseload of 92 criminal cases and 89
civil
cases.[3]
Five of the criminal cases were found to have been submitted for
decision,
but four of them had not been decided in spite of the lapse of the
mandatory
period therefor. These cases[4]
and the reported findings thereon are detailed hereunder:
(1) Criminal Cases
Nos. 93-4662,
(2) 93-4663 and
(3) 93-4664, People
vs. Tan (violation of B.P. Blg. 22):
Under the team's List of
Criminal Cases Submitted for Decision Before RTC, Branch 27, Naga City
as of September 24, 1996 (Tabulation A),[5]
the consolidated cases above were considered submitted for decision on
the basis of the order dated February 7, 1995, wherein the parties were
given 30 days to file their respective memoranda after which the same
would
be considered submitted for decision. The memorandum of the prosecution
is dated March 10, 1995 while that of the defense is dated March 24,
1995.
The prosecution submitted a supplemental memorandum on April 3, 1995.
(4) Criminal Case No.
94-5666, People vs. Valenzuela, et al. (unjust vexation):
This appealed case
from the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Minalabac, Camarines Sur was
considered
submitted for decision after the lapse of 15 days given to the parties
to submit their memoranda under a notice therefor dated March 31, 1995.
(5) Criminal Case
No.
96-6099, People vs. Jaucian (serious physical injuries and damage to
property
thru reckless imprudence):
This is an appealed case
from the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Naga City and was
raffled
to Branch 27 on April 25, 1996.
With regard to the pending
civil actions, two cases were submitted for decision and two motions in
two civil cases were considered submitted for resolution of the court.
These two cases and one motion hereunder enumerated, had not been acted
upon by the court despite the lapse of 90 days from the time of their
submission
for decision or resolution.[6]
(1) Civil Case No. 94-3013,
Geronimo vs. Geronimo (collection of sum of money):
As explained in the
team's List of Cases Submitted For Decision Before RTC, Branch 27, Naga
City as of September 24, 1996 (Tabulation B),[7]
this appealed case from the MTCC, Naga City was considered submitted
for
decision as of March 15, 1995 for failure of the defendant to submit
his
memorandum within 15 days from February 28, 1995 as directed by the
court.cralaw:red
(2) Civil Case No. 94-3306,
Maggay Corporation vs. Naga Telephone Co. (ejectment):
This is on appeal from
MTCC, Naga City and was considered submitted for decision on December
12,
1994.cralaw:red
(3) Civil Case No. 95-3317,
Pineda vs. Peoro (collection of sum of money):
In the order dated March
10, 1995, counsel for the parties were required to file their
respective
memoranda within 15 days, after which the court would rule on the
motion
for issuance of a writ of preliminary attachment.cralaw:red
(4) Civil Case No. 96-3535,
Valencia vs. Valencia (legal separation):
The resolution of the
motion to appoint petitioner as administratrix in this case was held in
abeyance pursuant to the order dated July 30, 1996.cralaw:red
Prior to the visit by
the team, Branch Clerk of Court Amelia B. Vargas submitted on September
6, 1996 a Monthly Report of Cases[8]
for August, 1996 to the Statistics Division, Office of the Court
Administrator.
Under Item No. V of the report calling for a list of cases submitted
for
decision but not yet decided at the end of the month, Vargas placed an
entry of "none".[9]
With this disparity,
as against the result of their inventory, the team recommended that
Atty.
Amelia B. Vargas be directed to show cause why she should not be
disciplined
for submitting a false monthly report indicating that there were no
cases
submitted for decision as of August, 1996 when actually there were nine
cases (five criminal and four civil) submitted for decision before
Branch
27, some of which had not been acted on beyond the period allowed to
decide
cases.[10]
However, to be accurate and in fairness to Vargas, only two civil cases
were actually submitted for decision as the other two civil cases only
concerned the resolution of motions filed therein.cralaw:red
Vargas explained in
her Compliance[11]
to our order that she made the questioned entry in the report because
of
the absence of orders from the lower court declaring the subject cases
submitted for decision. She reasoned out that such orders are necessary
if she is to accomplish in full the requirement in the report as to the
date when the cases were submitted for decision and the name of the
judge
before whom a case was so submitted.cralaw:red
It is important to note
that according to the memorandum of Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo
P. Abesamis, the Presiding Judge of Branch 27, Jose L. Panday, was
indefinitely
suspended by the Court in a resolution dated February 28, 1995 in A. M
No RTJ-95-1283 pending the investigation of the complaint against him
for
rape and child abuse.[12]
Since the suspension
of Judge Panday from office, Pairing Judge Antonio N. Gerona of Branch
28 and Executive Judge David C. Naval acted on all incidental or
interlocutory
matters pertaining to Branch 27, pursuant to Supreme Court
Administrative
Circular No. 7 dated September 23, 1974. However, they did not and
could
not render judgment on the cases pending before Branch 27 in the
absence
of authority from all or both of the parties in each case or from this
Court.[13]
Thus, also in our December
3, 1996 resolution,[14]
we designated Judge Edgar S. Surtida as Acting Judge of Branch 27 in
addition
to his duties as Presiding Judge of Branch 26 and directed him to
decide
the five criminal cases, namely, Criminal Cases Nos. 93-4662, 93-4663,
93-4664, 94-5666, and 96-6099, and the two civil cases, Civil Cases
Nos.
94-3013 and 94-3305, and to resolve the motions in Civil Cases Nos.
95-3317
and 96-3535 within 90 days from notice of that resolution.cralaw:red
Vargas would want us
to believe, as she claims she honestly believed then, that her duty to
register the seven cases as submitted for determination in the monthly
report depends on the existence of orders declaring the submission of
those
cases for decision. Withal, the fact that no orders were issued
declaring
the cases ready for judgment will not necessarily exonerate Vargas from
administrative liability.cralaw:red
Vital to our determination
of whether or not Vargas was remiss in her duty, however, is the
parallel
issue on the definition of the phrase "submitted for decision." We find
the meaning thereof in Administrative Circular No. 28 which provides
that:
(3) A case is
considered
submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence of the
parties
at the termination of the trial. The ninety (90) day period for
deciding
the case shall commence to run from submission of the case for decision
without memoranda; in case the Court requires or allows its filing, the
case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the
last memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is
earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid
reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless
the case was previously heard by another judge not the deciding judge
in
which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety (90) days
for
the completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same. (Emphasis
ours.)
Thus, in cases where the
courts allow the filing of memoranda, no further orders pronouncing the
submission of cases for decision are necessary before a case can be
regarded
as submitted for decision. Where the parties fail to submit their
memoranda
within the period given to them by the court, a case is deemed
submitted
for decision upon the expiration of that period whether or not there is
an order from the court to that effect. It is not the order that makes
a case ready for disposition of the court. The mere filing of the
memoranda
or the termination of the period to file one, whichever is earlier,
ipso
facto submits the case for adjudication.
One of the basic responsibilities
of a Branch Clerk of Court is the preparation of the official Monthly
Report
of Cases to be submitted to the Supreme Court.[15]
Erroneous statistical accomplishment of the monthly report thus
required
is equivalent to the submission of inaccurate reports[16]
and the failure of the clerk of court to make proper entries is a
ground
for disciplinary action against such clerk.[17]
Even if there are no
orders declaring the submission of cases for judgment of the court, a
clerk
of court is neither precluded nor excused from accurately accomplishing
SC Form No. 01. We have laid down in Circular No. 25-92 that all cases
submitted for decision but which remain undecided at the end of the
month
must be duly reported. It is only where there are no cases submitted
for
decision that clerks are allowed to enter "none."
The fact remains that
Vargas indicated that there were no cases submitted for decision when
in
truth there were seven of such cases as discovered by the audit team.
She
cannot even plead ignorance of Administrative Circular No. 28 because,
as a member of the bar and an employee of the court, she is expected to
know the rules and regulations promulgated by this Court. If she was in
doubt as to how to fill up the report, she could have easily consulted
the Office of the Court Administrator for assistance or simply stated
the
facts in full in her report.cralaw:red
An erroneous report
falsely indicating that there are no cases submitted for decision is
prejudicial
to the prompt administration of justice and to the interests of the
parties.
An accurate monthly report is essential in order to inform this Court
of
the status of pending cases in a particular lower courtAs it is, the
report which Vargas prepared and submitted led the Court to believe
that
no remedial measures were necessary in Branch 27, until the
irregularity
was discovered by the judicial audit team. Had Vargas only indicated in
her report that there were cases submitted for decision but that there
was no judge to decide them, this Court could have immediately acted
upon
the matter and assigned a substitute judge sooner.cralaw:red
The importance of correct
reports is underscored by the shift in our policy on the reporting of
cases.
In lieu of the monthly report of cases required in the Manual for
Clerks
of Court, we directed in Administrative Circular No. 8-93, dated June
21,
1993, the preparation and submission of Quarterly Report of Cases[18]
instead. However, after the Court realized the value of timely and
accurate
reports in the effective administration of lower courts, the monthly
reporting
of cases was forthwith restored effective January, 1995 through
Administrative
Circular No. 4-95, dated January 16, 1995.cralaw:red
Branch clerks of court
must realize that their administrative functions are vital to the
prompt
and proper administration of justice. They are charged with the
efficient
recording, filing and management of court records, besides having
administrative
supervision over court personnel. They play a key role in the
complement
of the court and cannot be permitted to slacken on their jobs under one
pretext or another.[19]
They must be assiduous in performing their official duties and in
supervising
and managing court dockets and records.[20]
In the preparation of
the official Monthly Report of Cases, clerks of court are hereby
directed
to accomplish Item No. V thereof pursuant to the following guidelines:
(1) Upon the
expiration
of the period allowed for the parties to submit their memoranda, the
clerk
shall consider such date of termination as the date when the case was
submitted
for decision and shall make the corresponding entry in the report. In
this
regard, clerks of court are advised to take note of the expiry date in
the orders/notices giving the parties the privilege of filing memoranda.
(2) In the absence
or
unavailability of a judge authorized to decide a case submitted for
decision,
the clerk shall so state in the report and give the reason for such
absence
or unavailability.
In his memorandum to
the Chief Justice, Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez
recommended
a reprimand for Vargas for serious breach of duty arising from her
failure
to prepare a correct monthly report of cases. While we agree that
Vargas
indeed violated her duty, the peculiar antecedents of the instant case
and the novelty of the situation as it then appeared to her incline us
to mitigate her liability. The ambient facts do not indicate that she
willfully
and grossly diverged from her duty to maintain the veracity of the
court
records involved.
WHEREFORE, Branch Clerk
of Court Amelia B. Vargas is hereby ADMONISHED to be more prudent and
circumspect
in the discharge of her duties, with a warning that a more severe
sanction
shall be imposed for any repetition of the same or similar offense in
the
future.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Padilla, Davide, Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan,
Mendoza,
Francisco, Hermosisima, Jr. and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
Torres, Jr., J.,
is on leave.cralaw:red
__________________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, 31-32.
[2]
Ibid., 13-26.
[3]
Ibid., 2.
[4]
Ibid., 4-3.
[5]
Ibid., 24.
[6]
Ibid., 5-6.
[7]
Ibid., 25.
[8]
SC Form No. 01, Revised January 1995; ibid., 26-29.
[9]
Ibid., 27.
[10]
Ibid., 11
[11]
Ibid., 34-36
[12]
Ibid., 2.
[13]
Ibid., 8-9.
[14]
Ibid., 31-32.
[15]
RTC Makati Movement Against Graft and Corruption vs. Dumlao, A.M No.
P-93-800,
and Quinto vs. Dumlao, A.M. P0-93-800-A, jointly decided on August 9,
1995,
247 SCRA 108.
[16]
Chapter VII, Manual for Clerks of Court, 132.
[17]Section H, Chapter I, Manual for Clerks of Court, 12.
[18]
SC Form No. 1-A, as amended.
[19]
Nidua vs. Lazaro, A.M. No. R-465 MTJ, June 29, 1989, 174 SCRA 581.
[20]
Angeles vs. Bantug and Guerrero, A.M. No. P-89-295, May 29, 1992, 209
SCRA
413. |