February 2009 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2009 > February 2009 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-07-2084 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2260-RTJ) : February 16, 2009] SPOUSES MAMERTO AND DELIA TIMADO, COMPLAINANTS, V. JUDGE ROSARIO B. TORRECAMPO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, PILI, CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENT. :
[A.M. No. RTJ-07-2084 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-2260-RTJ) : February 16, 2009]
SPOUSES MAMERTO AND DELIA TIMADO, COMPLAINANTS, V. JUDGE ROSARIO B. TORRECAMPO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, PILI, CAMARINES SUR, RESPONDENT.
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First Division of this Court dated 16 February 2009
A.M. No, RTJ-07-2084 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No, 05-2260-RTJ): SPOUSES MAMERTO and DELIA TIMADO, complainants, v. JUDGE ROSARIO B. TORRECAMPO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, PILI, CAMARINES SUR, respondent.
This administrative case originated from a complaint by spouses Mamerto and Delia Timado (complainants) charging respondent Judge Rosario B. Torrecampo (respondent judge) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Pili, Camarines Sur with Delay in the Rendition of Judgment in Civil Case No, IR-2974 for Reformation of Instrument entitled Spouses Mamerto Timado and Delia Timado V. Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., et al. Complainants alleged that a year after they submitted their Memorandum of Exhibits, their case remained unacted upon by respondent judge who should have rendered a decision thereon within three months from receipt of the pleading.
On 1 June 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent judge to comment on the complaint. Respondent judge requested for 20 days from 4 July 2005 to submit her comment which was granted. On 19 July 2005, respondent judge requested for another extension of 20 days within which to file her comment. Her request was granted. In the Resolution dated 19 July 2006, this Court directed respondent judge to show cause why she should not be administratively dealt with for refusing to submit her comment despite the repeated directives from the OCA.
In her Manifestation dated 11 September 2006, respondent judge averred that it was never her intention to refuse to submit her comment on the complaint, She alleged that she requested time to submit the same because of poor health, i.e. "nodular non-toxic goiter, hypertension stage 2, and duplipidermia." She claimed that she had developed complications which resulted in frequent and constant pain. She admitted that the delay in the completion of the decision was due to ill health, and thus, she requested for time or until 31 October 2006 within which to decide the case.
In her Compliance dated 8 November 2006, respondent judge reported that she has already decided Civil Case No. IR-2974 entitled Spouses Mamerto Timado and Delia Timado v. Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., for reformation of instrument, Special Proceeding No: IR-1789 entitled In Re: Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession, and Special Civil Action No, IR-3187 entitled Spouses Mamerto Timado and Delia Timado v. Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc. et al, for indirect contempt, She alleged that due to frequent electric outages and electric current fluctuation, the draft of the joint decision, although completed on 31 October 2006, was "computer-printed only on 7 November 2006." Attached to her Compliance was a copy of the joint decision.
In its Report and Recommendation, the OCA found respondent judge guilty of the charge of delay in the disposition of the cases. The OCA observed that the subject cases were submitted for decision on 27 February 2004 but they were decided only on 31 October 2006 or after a delay of more than two and a half years. The OCA averred that respondent judge herself admitted the delay but alleged poor health as an excuse, The OCA recommended that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P11,000.
As correctly pointed out by the OCA, members of the judiciary have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary, Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions against them.[1] Even if stricken by an illness which hampered the due performance of her duties, still, it is incumbent upon respondent judge to inform this Court of her inability to seasonably decide the cases assigned to her.
Time and again, this Court has stated that judges must decide cases and resolve matters with dispatch because any delay in the administration of justice, no matter how brief, deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of their case and undermines the people's faith in the judiciary.[2] Delay in the disposition of cases not only deprives litigants of their right to speedy disposition of their cases, but also tarnishes the image of the judiciary. Nevertheless, the Court, in its pursuit of speedy dispensation of justice, is not unmindful of circumstances that may delay the disposition of the cases assigned to judges. It remains sympathetic on seasonably filed requests for extensions of time to decide cases.[3] But failure to act on a case for a considerable length of time demonstrates lack of dedication to one's work and is administratively sanctionable.
As correctly pointed out by the OCA, respondent judge submitted the subject cases for decision on 27 February 2004 but they were decided only on 31 October 2006 or after a delay of more than two and a half years.
Undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious charge which is punishable by suspension from office witliout salary and other benefits for not less than one but not exceeding three months; or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000,[4]
In her Urgent Ex-parte Manifestation dated 28 November 2008, respondent judge manifested that she has compulsorily retired from the judiciary on 1 April 2008.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Rosario B. Torrecampo GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision and imposes upon her a FINE in the amount of P11,000, which may be deducted from her retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona and Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Members, Honorable Justice Arturo D. Brion, Additional Member [per S.O. No. 570], First Division, this 16th day of February, 2009.
A.M. No, RTJ-07-2084 (formerly A.M. OCA IPI No, 05-2260-RTJ): SPOUSES MAMERTO and DELIA TIMADO, complainants, v. JUDGE ROSARIO B. TORRECAMPO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 33, PILI, CAMARINES SUR, respondent.
This administrative case originated from a complaint by spouses Mamerto and Delia Timado (complainants) charging respondent Judge Rosario B. Torrecampo (respondent judge) of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 33, Pili, Camarines Sur with Delay in the Rendition of Judgment in Civil Case No, IR-2974 for Reformation of Instrument entitled Spouses Mamerto Timado and Delia Timado V. Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., et al. Complainants alleged that a year after they submitted their Memorandum of Exhibits, their case remained unacted upon by respondent judge who should have rendered a decision thereon within three months from receipt of the pleading.
On 1 June 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent judge to comment on the complaint. Respondent judge requested for 20 days from 4 July 2005 to submit her comment which was granted. On 19 July 2005, respondent judge requested for another extension of 20 days within which to file her comment. Her request was granted. In the Resolution dated 19 July 2006, this Court directed respondent judge to show cause why she should not be administratively dealt with for refusing to submit her comment despite the repeated directives from the OCA.
In her Manifestation dated 11 September 2006, respondent judge averred that it was never her intention to refuse to submit her comment on the complaint, She alleged that she requested time to submit the same because of poor health, i.e. "nodular non-toxic goiter, hypertension stage 2, and duplipidermia." She claimed that she had developed complications which resulted in frequent and constant pain. She admitted that the delay in the completion of the decision was due to ill health, and thus, she requested for time or until 31 October 2006 within which to decide the case.
In her Compliance dated 8 November 2006, respondent judge reported that she has already decided Civil Case No. IR-2974 entitled Spouses Mamerto Timado and Delia Timado v. Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc., for reformation of instrument, Special Proceeding No: IR-1789 entitled In Re: Ex-Parte Petition for Issuance of Writ of Possession, and Special Civil Action No, IR-3187 entitled Spouses Mamerto Timado and Delia Timado v. Rural Bank of San Jose, Inc. et al, for indirect contempt, She alleged that due to frequent electric outages and electric current fluctuation, the draft of the joint decision, although completed on 31 October 2006, was "computer-printed only on 7 November 2006." Attached to her Compliance was a copy of the joint decision.
In its Report and Recommendation, the OCA found respondent judge guilty of the charge of delay in the disposition of the cases. The OCA observed that the subject cases were submitted for decision on 27 February 2004 but they were decided only on 31 October 2006 or after a delay of more than two and a half years. The OCA averred that respondent judge herself admitted the delay but alleged poor health as an excuse, The OCA recommended that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P11,000.
As correctly pointed out by the OCA, members of the judiciary have the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary, Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions against them.[1] Even if stricken by an illness which hampered the due performance of her duties, still, it is incumbent upon respondent judge to inform this Court of her inability to seasonably decide the cases assigned to her.
Time and again, this Court has stated that judges must decide cases and resolve matters with dispatch because any delay in the administration of justice, no matter how brief, deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of their case and undermines the people's faith in the judiciary.[2] Delay in the disposition of cases not only deprives litigants of their right to speedy disposition of their cases, but also tarnishes the image of the judiciary. Nevertheless, the Court, in its pursuit of speedy dispensation of justice, is not unmindful of circumstances that may delay the disposition of the cases assigned to judges. It remains sympathetic on seasonably filed requests for extensions of time to decide cases.[3] But failure to act on a case for a considerable length of time demonstrates lack of dedication to one's work and is administratively sanctionable.
As correctly pointed out by the OCA, respondent judge submitted the subject cases for decision on 27 February 2004 but they were decided only on 31 October 2006 or after a delay of more than two and a half years.
Undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious charge which is punishable by suspension from office witliout salary and other benefits for not less than one but not exceeding three months; or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000,[4]
In her Urgent Ex-parte Manifestation dated 28 November 2008, respondent judge manifested that she has compulsorily retired from the judiciary on 1 April 2008.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Rosario B. Torrecampo GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision and imposes upon her a FINE in the amount of P11,000, which may be deducted from her retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Antonio T. Carpio, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Renato C. Corona and Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Members, Honorable Justice Arturo D. Brion, Additional Member [per S.O. No. 570], First Division, this 16th day of February, 2009.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
(Sgd.) ENRIQUETA ESGUERRA-VIDAL
Clerk of Court
First Division
Endnotes:
[1] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-Br. 47, Urdaneta City, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1968,31 January 2006, 481 SCRA 76.
[2] China Banking Corporation v. Janolo, Jr., AM. No. RTJ-07-2035, 12 June 2008, 554 SCRA 295.
[3] Request of Judge Diosdado A. Yamas, Regional Trial Court, Mati, Davao Oriental, Branch 5 for Extension of Time to Decide Civil Case No. 2009, A.M. No. 04-2-111-RTC, 22 June 2005.
[4] Rule 140, Sections 9 and 11, RRC.
