EN
BANC
OFFICE
OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR,
Complainant,
A. M. No. RTJ-96-1350
[Formerly A.M. No. 96-3-83-RTC]
August 18, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
DELIA H. PANGANIBAN,
Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Makati
City,
Respondent.
D
E C I S I O N
MENDOZA, J.:
Respondent
Delia H. Panganiban is Presiding Judge
of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 64, Makati City. She is charged
with
gross negligence, inefficiency, and falsification of public documents
in
a complaint filed by the Office of the Court Administrator.
The facts are as
follows. In a letter to the Office
of the Court Administrator [OCA] dated January 24, 1996, respondent
judge
asked for 60 days within which to resolve 51 cases which had been
submitted
to her for decision. She informed the OCA that the 90-day period for
deciding
the cases had already lapsed at the time of her request for extension.cralaw:red
The OCA, through
Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo
P. Abesamis, advised respondent judge to inform the Court of the dates
when the aforesaid 51 cases had been submitted for decision to
determine
the "due dates of the cases," for the purpose of determining when the
period
of extension which respondent judge was requesting should be counted.cralaw:red
Respondent judge
thereafter sent a letter, dated
February 1, 1996, to the OCA showing that, of the 51 cases for which an
extension of the time for deciding was being requested, the due dates
for
deciding 48 had expired: in six cases since 1993; in 13 cases since
1994;
and in 29 cases since 1995.cralaw:red
Respondent judge
did not disclose her failure
to resolve these 48 cases within the reglementary period of 90 days in
her certificates of service which she submitted during the period
August
1993 to January 1996. On the contrary she stated in each certificate
that
"all special proceedings, applications, petitions, motions and all
civil
cases which have been under submission for decision or determination
for
a period of ninety (90) days or more have been determined and decided"
by her.cralaw:red
On the basis of
these facts, the OCA filed the
present administrative case, alleging that respondent judge was guilty
of [1] delay in the administration of justice amounting to negligence
and
inefficiency as well as violation of the Constitution, Art. VIII,
Section
15(1) and (2); and [2] falsification of certificates of service
submitted
during the period August 1993 to January 1996. The OCA recommended that
respondent judge be fined in an amount equal to her salary for one year.cralaw:red
In her Comment,
respondent judge says that "she
does not offer justification or excuse" for her failure to decide cases
within the reglementary period and for making false certificates and
that
"she takes full responsibility for the acts complained of." However,
she
pleads good faith, pointing out that it was she who disclosed her own
"momentary
inadequacy," that her monthly reports of cases have always been
truthful,
by indicating therein the cases left undecided and the reasons
therefor,
and that the falsification of the certificates "did not proceed from a
corrupt mind." She pleads for understanding, calling attention to her
rate
of disposition in general, which she claims is at par with those of
other
judges, given the inadequate facilities of her court and to the fact
that
she had other duties as a member of the Raffle Committee and
officer-in-charge
of voluntary confinement in drugs cases, and the fact that as of August
9, 1996 she had no more cases pending decision beyond the 90-day period.cralaw:red
On August 13,
1996, Executive Judge Salvador Abad
S. Santos filed a Manifestation, stating that respondent judge deserves
compassion. The Executive Judge avers that, although respondent did not
come up to the standard of performance set by this Court, she has
nonetheless
given to the judiciary many years of unquestionable and dedicated
service
and is among the judges who have not been swayed by money, power, or
fame
in rendering judgments.cralaw:red
The Court
referred the case for investigation,
report and recommendation to Court of Appeals Justice Fermin A. Martin,
Jr., who, in a report dated January 31, 1997, found respondent judge
guilty
as charged. However, Justice Martin, Jr. found extenuating
circumstances
in favor of respondent, to wit: her above-average performance
in
the disposition of cases, the absence of malice in the alleged
falsification
of her certificate of service, her long and unblemished service in the
government, and her reputation for integrity, honesty, and hard work.
For
this reason, Justice Martin, Jr. recommends that she be made to pay a
fine
of P100,000.00.cralaw:red
There is no
dispute regarding the failure of respondent
judge to decide 48 cases within the 90-day period prescribed by law and
her failure to indicate this fact in her monthly certificates of
service.
Respondent judge admits these allegations, offers no excuses and
justification,
and assumes full responsibility for them. However, she pleads for
understanding
and compassion, calling attention to her above average disposition of
cases,
good faith, and dedicated service as warranting the dismissal of the
case
against her.cralaw:red
Respondent's
failure to decide cases constitutes
a violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which
requires judges to dispose of their court's business promptly and
decide
cases within the period specified in the Constitution, i.e.,
three
[3] months or ninety [90] days from the filing of the last pleading,
brief,
or memorandum.[1]
This Canon is intended to implement the Constitution which makes it the
duty of trial courts to decide cases within three months,[2]
even as it gives parties to a suit the right to the speedy disposition
of their cases.[3]
Respondent judge
knew of the cases pending resolution.
In fact, she had been reporting them to this Court in her monthly
reports.[4]
Nonetheless, she stated in her certificates of service that she had no
case submitted for decision within the 90 days preceding the submission
of her certificate, in the honest belief that the salary which she
collected
on the basis of such certificates "had been justly earned
notwithstanding
the fact that there are submitted cases remaining for decision." This
of
course constitutes serious misconduct under Rule 140, Section 1 of the
Rules of Court. As an officer of the court, she should conduct herself
strictly in accordance with the highest standards of ethics.[5]
Neither good
faith nor long, unblemished and above
average service in the judiciary can fully justify respondent judge's
lapses.
The Court cannot countenance undue delay in the disposition of cases
which
is one of the causes of the loss of faith and confidence of our people
in the judiciary and brings it into disrepute.[6]
Nor can the Court turn a blind eye to what might constitute gross
misconduct
because of the submission of false certificates of service. At
the
same time there are counterweights that must be considered in
determining
the culpability of respondent judge as a matter of justice. For there
are
present in this case mitigating circumstances in her favor. First is
the
fact that this is respondent judge's first offense. That this is a
mitigating
circumstance in her favor has been settled by our cases.[7]
Second is her
long and exemplary service in the
judiciary[8]
and the fact that her rate of disposition is above average. Although
she
failed to decide the 48 cases within the 90-day period prescribed by
law,
the fact is that respondent judge was able to reduce her initial
caseload
of 704 upon assuming office in 1993 to 219 in September 1996 and it is
entirely possible that her failure to decide the cases in question
within
90 days was precisely due to the heavy caseload which she had when she
first assumed office in Makati in 1992. Her fault lies in the fact that
she did not apply for an extension of the time to decide until 1996.
Otherwise,
she has never been idle.[9]
As found by Investigating Justice Fermin A. Martin, Jr.:
Respondent judge's output of decided
cases
compares
favorably with that of the other judges of the RTC of Makati City. As
Executive
Judge Salvador S. Santos of the RTC of Makati manifested, respondent
judge
is one of the five [5] judges in the RTC of Makati City with the
highest
number of disposed cases at the end of the same month. From the 704
casts
in her docket when she assumed office, respondent was able to reduce
her
caseload to 234 [Exh "6", pp. 62-63, Record]. In fact, as of September
1996, respondent judge only had 219 cases [Exh. "5-A", TSN, October 23,
1996, p. 14].
Third is that
there is here no private complainant
prejudiced by the failure to decide their cases on time.[10]
It was respondent judge who brought to our attention her predicament.
Fourth is that
after having been administratively
charged, respondent readily acknowledged her fault, offering no excuses
and assuming full responsibility for her failure which she immediately
corrected by disposing of all of the cases subject of the present
administrative
case. These additional extenuating circumstances, which were not before
the investigator and therefore were not considered by him in his
report,
warrant the reduction of the recommended penalty from P100,000.00 to
P12,000.00.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, Judge
Delia H. Panganiban is found
guilty of gross negligence and serious misconduct and is hereby ordered
to pay a fine of P12,000.00 directly to this Court, with a warning that
a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Padilla, Regalado, Davide,
Jr., Romero, Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Francisco,
Hermosisima,
Jr., Panganiban and Torres, Jr., JJ., concur.
____________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Re: Judge Danilo M. Tenerife, 255 SCRA 184, 187 [1996].
[2]
Constitution, Art. VIII. Section 15(1): Re Judge Fernando P. Agdamag,
254
SCRA 644, 650 [1996]; Bolalin v. Occiana, A.M No. MTJ-96-1104, Jan. 14,
1997.
[3]
Id., Art. III, Section 16.
[4]
Exhibits 8-27; Records, pp. 13-107.
[5]
Re Report of the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Records
of
Cases in MTCC-Br. 2, Batangas City, 248 SCRA 36, 42 [1995].
[6]
See Re Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., 247 SCRA 519, 524 (1995); Report on
the
Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court Branches, 61, 134
and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, 248 SCRA 5, 22-23 [1995].
[7]
E.g., Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the
Records
of Cases in MTCC-Br. 2, Batangas City, 248 SCRA 36 [1995], Re Judge
Fernando
P. Agdamag, 254 SCRA 644, 650 [1996].
[8]
Ben D. Marces v. Judge Paul C. Arcangel, A.M. No. RTJ-91-712, July 9,
1996.
[9]
See Re Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., 217 SCRA 519 [1995].
[10]
See De la Cruz v. Curso, 221 SCRA 66 [1993]; Cf. Sabado v. Cajigal, 219
SCRA 800 [1993].
|