Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > March 2010 Resolutions > [A.M. No. RTJ-10-2224 [Formerly OCA DPI No. 08-3069-RTJ] : March 01, 2010] RE: JOHNNY L. SY, REPRESENTED BY FRANCIS LAURENCE P. SY V. JUDGE TRINIDAD L. DABBAY, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT (RTC), BRANCH 75, VALENZUELA CITY. :

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of the First division of this Court dated 01 March 2010

A.M. No. RTJ-10-2224 [Formerly OCA DPI No. 08-3069-RTJ] - Re: Johnny L. Sy, represented by Francis Laurence P. Sy v. Judge Trinidad L. Dabbay, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 75, Valenzuela City.

By his September 14, 2008 Complaint,^[1] Johnny Sy, represented by his attorney-in-fact Francis Laurence P. Sy, charged Judge Trinidad L. Dabbay^[2] (respondent) with delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 17-V-05^[3] for Replevin and Damages, which case was re-raffled to respondent after Judge Maria Nena J. Santos inhibited from hearing the case.

As synthesized by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) in its January 22, 2010 Report,^[4] the following are the facts which spawned the filing of the complaint.

On January 5, 2006, the complainant, through counsel, Atty. Florencio V. Anchuvas, filed a Manifestation and Motion on the Application for Replevin.

On 19 April 2006, complainant, through his new counsel, Atty. Ernesto P. Layusa, filed with the Court an Ex-Parte Motion to Set Case for Examination of Plaintiff for Issuance of Writ of Replevin.

When Atty. Layusa failed to receive any resolution on the said motion, he went to the court on 18 May 2006 to inquire as to the action taken thereon. Thereat, he was informed by Atty. Vista, Branch Clerk of Court, that the case will be calendared sometime in August 2006.

In a Letter dated 9 August 2006, Atty. Layusa called the attention of Executive Judge Maria Nena J. Santos on the long delay and inaction of respondent Judge Dabbay. The letter was indorsed to respondent Judge Dabbay.

Still without action being taken on the motion, Atty. Layusa informed the Office of the Court Administrator, in a Letter dated 19 March 2007, about the matter.

In a Reply dated 6 June 2007, respondent ... avers that the delay was attributable, among others, to the clogged docket of the court and its physical condition which is not conducive and a welcome workplace.

Complainant...points out that a one-page order which can be issued... in order not to let the trailer truck, subject of the case, be reduced to rust and to make the case moot and academic is not too much to ask from [him].

Complainant ... claims that because of the little time and simplicity of the action needed that he cannot accept [his] explanation and is thus, constrained to pursue this action.^[5]

Respondent's April 16, 2009 Comment^[6] was synthesized as well by the OCA as follows:

Respondent. . . admits that indeed there was delay in resolving the subject motions. However, the delay was not deliberate but due to several factors and justifiable reasons.

. . . [H]e was barely three (3) months on the bench when the subject civil case was raffled to his sala. When he began his judicial functions, he inherited almost 2,000 cases with several pending decisions and over a hundred or close to 200 unresolved pending incidents left by his two (2) predecessors. As of 28 February 2007, the docket of the court totaled 2, 270 cases, 296 of which are pending incidents and 63 for decisions. Given the clogged docket of the court and foreseeing that he could not possibly act on all pending decisions, incidents and related matters within the prescribed period of time not to mention his administrative duties and functions, he sought for extensions.

Respondent ... adds that these were not the only problems that he encountered. He discovered that the court was running without an orderly workflow system. Case records were managed poorly. Records were piled on top of the other on the floor, as there were no shelves to keep it in place. Hence, he requested from the City Government of Quezon for the repair of the court. While awaiting approval, he conducted trial from March to mid June 2005. The renovation started in 15 July 2006 and was finished on 31 July 2005. Thereafter, [he] personally involved himself in the inventory and no hearings were scheduled. Hearings resumed on September 2005, scheduling an average of forty (40) criminal cases and ten (10) civil cases twice a week each.

Respondent...reiterates that the delay in resolving the application for the issuance of Writ of Replevin was not deliberate or intentional. Neither was it attended with malice nor ulterior motive. It is a question of coping up with a very heavy docket of the court. In fact, the Supreme Court noted his predicament that his pleas for aid were answered by assigning two (2) assisting judges to the court under Administrative Order No. 160-2008 and Administrative Order No. 25-2009.^[7]

The OCA came up with the following evaluation:

... It is undisputable that respondent ....incurred delay in resolving the Application for Issuance of a Writ of Replevin. Records show that the subject case was re-raffled to respondent Judge Dabbay's sala on 23 June 2005. The application was filed on 05 January 2006, yet, up to the time that complainant Sy filed a Motion to Re-raffle and/or Inhibition on 7 April 2009, respondent Judge Dabbay failed to act on it. For four (4) years and three (3) months, the application remained unresolved by respondent Judge Dabbay.

The explanations respondent Judge Dabbay set forth do not sufficiently justify the enormous delay in the disposition of the subject case. The snail pace movement of the proceedings of the case is a classic example of justice delayed, justice denied. It is unfortunate that the court, the temple of justice has violated the party litigants' right to speedy trial as mandated by no less than the Constitution.

Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of 90-days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and constitutes inefficiency.

Under A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated 11 September 2001, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge punishable by a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not more than P20,000.00, or suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month but not more than three months.^[8] (Italics in the original; emphasis and underscoring supplied)

Thus, the OCA recommended that respondent be fined in the amount ofP10,000.^[9]

By Resolution of February 17, 2010, the Court re-docketed this as a regular administrative matter.

The evaluation of the case by the OCA in light of the facts of the case and the recommended penalty of the OCA are well-taken.

The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary^[10] expressly requires judges to perform all judicial duties, "including the delivery  of reserved decisions,  efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."^[11]

Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct12 likewise requires judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

Any delay in the administration of justice, no matter how brief, deprives the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case and could easily undermine the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary, lower its standards and bring it to disrepute.^[14]

WHEREFORE, respondent Judge Trinidad L. Dabbay is, for undue delay in resolving motions, FINED in the amount of TEN THOUSAND (P10,000).

SO ORDERED.

WITNESS the Honorable Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno, Chairperson, Honorable Justice Conchita Carpio Morales, Working Chairperson, Honorable Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Lucas P. Bersamin, and Martin S. Villarama, Jr., Members, First Division, this l^st day of March 2010.

Endnotes:

---

^[1] Rollo, pp. 1-5.

^[2] Per OCA Report, Judge Trinidad Dabbay tendered his resignation from trie Judiciary effective July 1, 2009 but the Court has yet to accept the resignation. He also was charged with Delay in the resolution of a case in OCA IPI No. 09-3162-RTJ (Baltazar Sy v. Judge Trinidad L. Dabbay) which is still pending.

^[3] Entitled "Johnny L. Sy, operating the firm name and style of 'DJG'S TRUCKING,' represented by his brother, General Manager, and Attorney-in-Fact, James L. Sy v. Jadewell Parking Systems Corporation, Ronald D. Gonzales, Bonifacio Gapay, Jr. and John Doe.

^[4] Rollo, pp. 96-100.

^[5] Id. at 96-97.

^[6] Id. at 58-63.

^[7] Id. at 98-99.

^[8] Id. at 99-100.

^[9] Id. at 100.

^[10] The Code superseded the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct.

^[11] Sec. 5, Canon 6

^[12] In case of deficiency or specific provisions in the New Code, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory character.

^[13] Belleza v. Cabarde, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1867, February 17, 2005, 451 SCRA632, 635.

^[14] Espenelli v. Espa�ol, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1785, March 10, 2005, 453 SCRA 96; Bangco v. Gatdula, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297, March 7, 2002, 378 SCRA 534; Yu-Asensi v. Judge Villanueva, A.M. No. RTJ-03-1785, 379 Phil. 258 (2000).