November 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > November 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-10-2252 [formerly A.M. No. 10-9-279-RTC] : November 24, 2010] RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE THE LATE JUDGE CHITO S. MEREGILLANO, RTC-BR. 51, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY :
[A.M. No. RTJ-10-2252 [formerly A.M. No. 10-9-279-RTC] : November 24, 2010]
RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE THE LATE JUDGE CHITO S. MEREGILLANO, RTC-BR. 51, PUERTO PRINCESA CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution dated 24 November 2010 which reads as follows:
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2252 [formerly A.M. No. 10-9-279-RTC] (Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before the Late Judge Chito S. Meregillano, RTC-Br. 51, Puerto Princesa City)
On November 2, 2009, Judge Chito S. Meregillano of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 51 in Puerto Princesa City passed away due to cardiac arrest. Thereafter, his heirs filed a Certificate of Clearance with this Court in support of their application for Judge Meregillano's retirement/gratuity benefits under Republic Act No. (RA) 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1438.[1]
Based on the RTC's Monthly Report of Cases for the month of May 2010, however, it was noted that, at the time of his demise, Judge Meregillano had left five (5) cases[2] submitted for decision which were already beyond the reglementary period allowed by law to decide. No explanation was provided in the Monthly Report of Cases for the failure of Judge Meregillano to decide the five (5) cases.
After investigation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Meregillano's failure to decide the said five (5) cases as tantamount to gross inefficiency in the performance of his duties and recommended that he be fined ten thousand pesos (PhP 10,000), which amount should be deducted from his retirement/gratuity benefits.
We agree with the recommendation of the OCA to impose a fine on Judge Meregillano and deduct it from his retirement/gratuity benefits, but we should modify it in accordance with the Rules of Court.
A judge is constitutionally mandated lo decide cases in his court within the reglementary period provided by law in order to uphold a person's right to a speedy disposition of his case.[3] Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[a]ll cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and. unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts." The period allotted for judges in lower courts of three (3) months from the date of submission is provided by law precisely to eliminate the problem of congestion in dockets of courts.
Delay in the disposition of cases diminishes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary.[4] Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary enjoins all judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. Suppletorily, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that all judges should dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.[5] Moreover. Administrative Circular No. 3-99 requires all judges to meticulously observe the periods prescribed in the Constitution for deciding cases and the failure to comply with it is considered as a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to the speedy disposition of their cases. Judges should keep track of the cases submitted for decision so that they are decided within the period required by law.[6] The failure of judges to decide cases within the reglementary period displays gross inefficiency in the performance of judicial functions,[7] which merits punishment by suspension or imposition of a fine.[8]
In this case, the Court finds that prior to his demise, Judge Meregillano failed to decide Civil Case No. 2887, Civil Case No. 3371 (3421), Criminal Case Nos. 12365 and 12366, and Civil Case No. 4074, within the ninety (90)-day period from date of submission of said cases for decision. There was gross inefficiency on his part for not having decided the aforementioned cases within the time provided by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 in breach of Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code and the then Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Administrative Circular No. 3-99.
Judge Meregillano could have asked the Court for an extension of time to decide said cases but failed to do so. His unjustified failure to dispose of the cases speedily merits the imposition of a fine. Sec. 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "undue delay in rendering a decision constitutes a less serious charge punishable under Section 11(b) of the same Rule by either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months or a fine of more than Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP 10,000) but not exceeding Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP 20,000)." Since Judge Meregillano failed to decide five (5) cases at the time of his demise, the imposition of a fine of ten thousand one hundred pesos (PhP 10,100), as prescribed by Rule 140, should suffice.
Then and now, delay in the adjudication of cases is the common plaint of litigants before the courts. Procrastination in deciding cases is an abomination of the avowed goal of providing efficient, effective and expeditious dispensation of justice. Prolonging case adjudication unfairly tilts the balance in favor of moneyed litigants to the grave prejudice of the poor and the marginalized who may eventually just agree to a settlement where their claims are drastically reduced or minimized to a pittance when they are entitled to much more mainly because of lack of financial resources. Thus, the level playing field guarded by the due process clause of the Constitution is severely eroded. Magistrates must, therefore, strictly comply with the timelines provided under the Constitution, laws and the Supreme Court Rules. After all, speedy justice is always held sacred in a democracy.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds Judge Chito S. Mercgillano liable for gross inefficiency due to his failure to decide five (5) cases within the reglementary period and imposes upon him a fine of ten thousand one hundred pesos (PhP 10,100) to be deducted from his retirement/gratuity benefits.
SO ORDERED.
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2252 [formerly A.M. No. 10-9-279-RTC] (Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before the Late Judge Chito S. Meregillano, RTC-Br. 51, Puerto Princesa City)
On November 2, 2009, Judge Chito S. Meregillano of the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 51 in Puerto Princesa City passed away due to cardiac arrest. Thereafter, his heirs filed a Certificate of Clearance with this Court in support of their application for Judge Meregillano's retirement/gratuity benefits under Republic Act No. (RA) 910, as amended by Presidential Decree No. (PD) 1438.[1]
Based on the RTC's Monthly Report of Cases for the month of May 2010, however, it was noted that, at the time of his demise, Judge Meregillano had left five (5) cases[2] submitted for decision which were already beyond the reglementary period allowed by law to decide. No explanation was provided in the Monthly Report of Cases for the failure of Judge Meregillano to decide the five (5) cases.
After investigation, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Meregillano's failure to decide the said five (5) cases as tantamount to gross inefficiency in the performance of his duties and recommended that he be fined ten thousand pesos (PhP 10,000), which amount should be deducted from his retirement/gratuity benefits.
We agree with the recommendation of the OCA to impose a fine on Judge Meregillano and deduct it from his retirement/gratuity benefits, but we should modify it in accordance with the Rules of Court.
A judge is constitutionally mandated lo decide cases in his court within the reglementary period provided by law in order to uphold a person's right to a speedy disposition of his case.[3] Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that "[a]ll cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and. unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts." The period allotted for judges in lower courts of three (3) months from the date of submission is provided by law precisely to eliminate the problem of congestion in dockets of courts.
Delay in the disposition of cases diminishes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary.[4] Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary enjoins all judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. Suppletorily, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that all judges should dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.[5] Moreover. Administrative Circular No. 3-99 requires all judges to meticulously observe the periods prescribed in the Constitution for deciding cases and the failure to comply with it is considered as a serious violation of the constitutional right of the parties to the speedy disposition of their cases. Judges should keep track of the cases submitted for decision so that they are decided within the period required by law.[6] The failure of judges to decide cases within the reglementary period displays gross inefficiency in the performance of judicial functions,[7] which merits punishment by suspension or imposition of a fine.[8]
In this case, the Court finds that prior to his demise, Judge Meregillano failed to decide Civil Case No. 2887, Civil Case No. 3371 (3421), Criminal Case Nos. 12365 and 12366, and Civil Case No. 4074, within the ninety (90)-day period from date of submission of said cases for decision. There was gross inefficiency on his part for not having decided the aforementioned cases within the time provided by Batas Pambansa Blg. 129 in breach of Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code and the then Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and Administrative Circular No. 3-99.
Judge Meregillano could have asked the Court for an extension of time to decide said cases but failed to do so. His unjustified failure to dispose of the cases speedily merits the imposition of a fine. Sec. 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court provides that "undue delay in rendering a decision constitutes a less serious charge punishable under Section 11(b) of the same Rule by either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months or a fine of more than Ten Thousand Pesos (PhP 10,000) but not exceeding Twenty Thousand Pesos (PhP 20,000)." Since Judge Meregillano failed to decide five (5) cases at the time of his demise, the imposition of a fine of ten thousand one hundred pesos (PhP 10,100), as prescribed by Rule 140, should suffice.
Then and now, delay in the adjudication of cases is the common plaint of litigants before the courts. Procrastination in deciding cases is an abomination of the avowed goal of providing efficient, effective and expeditious dispensation of justice. Prolonging case adjudication unfairly tilts the balance in favor of moneyed litigants to the grave prejudice of the poor and the marginalized who may eventually just agree to a settlement where their claims are drastically reduced or minimized to a pittance when they are entitled to much more mainly because of lack of financial resources. Thus, the level playing field guarded by the due process clause of the Constitution is severely eroded. Magistrates must, therefore, strictly comply with the timelines provided under the Constitution, laws and the Supreme Court Rules. After all, speedy justice is always held sacred in a democracy.
WHEREFORE, this Court finds Judge Chito S. Mercgillano liable for gross inefficiency due to his failure to decide five (5) cases within the reglementary period and imposes upon him a fine of ten thousand one hundred pesos (PhP 10,100) to be deducted from his retirement/gratuity benefits.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) EDGAR O. ARICHETA
Assistant Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] "Amending Republic Act 910 Providing for the Retirement of Justices and All Judges in the Judiciary as Amended," June 10, 1978.
[2] Civil Case No. 2887, Civil Case No. 3371 (3421). Criminal Case No. 12365. Criminal Case No 12366 and Civil Case No. 4074.
[3] CONSTITUTION, Art. VIII. Sec. 15(1); and Art. III, Sec. 16.
[4] Vishal v. Sescon, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1890, October 11, 2005, 472 SCRA 233, 238.
[5] Id.
[6] Office of the Court Administrator v. Andaya, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1676, August 28. 2003, 410 SCRA 47; 51.
[7] Id.
[8] RULES OF COURT, Rule 140, Sec. 9(1).
