ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. 9770-Ret.August 10, 1999]

RE:APPLICATION FOR OPTIONAL RETIREMENT OF JUDGE MARCELINO F. BAUTISTA JR.

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated AUG 10, 1999.

A.M. No. 9770-Ret. (Re: Application for Optional Retirement of Judge Marcelino F. Bautista, Jr.)

Judge Marcelino F. Bautista, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 215, Quezon City filed an application for optional retirement from the Judiciary under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Act No. 5095 and Presidential Decree No. 1438. Judge Bautista, Jr. was sixty-three (63) years of age on July 17, 1998, the effective date of his retirement.

On February 16, 1999, we issued the following Resolution, viz:

The Court Resolved to (a)APPROVE the application for optional retirement filed by Judge Marcelino F. Bautista, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 215, Quezon City, effective July 17, 1998, under R.A. 910, as amended by R.A. 5095 and P.D. 1438, subject to the availability of funds and the usual clearance requirements and (b)DIRECT the Fiscal Management Budget Office, Office of the Court Administrator, to WITHHOLD the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00) Pesos from his retirement benefits pending the outcome of administrative complaint OCA IPI 98-570-RTJ, and until after Judge Bautista, Jr., has satisfactorily explained his failure to resolve Civil Case No. Q-91-7822."

By way of explanation, Judge Bautista, Jr. submitted to this Court a letter dated April 28, 1999. He stated:

"1.Civil Case No. Q-91-7822 was a case for "Nullification of Execution Proceedings with Prayer for Preliminary Injunction" filed by Ricardo G. Ysmael, Halim G. Ysmael, Rosario Ysmael-Palanca and Carlos G. Ysmael, Jr. as plaintiffs, versus Eliseo R. Jamlang, the Sheriff of Quezon City and the Register of Deeds of Quezon City as defendants;

2.Said` case was originally assigned to Branch 83 of this Court on January 29, 1991 but re-raffled and transmitted to this Court on May 11, 1994;

3.As stated in the Resolution of said petition dated January 18, 1998 and as borne out by the records, the prolonged proceedings were due to the parties themselves who sought various postponements for one reason or another;

4.When the undersigned last heard the petition on February 27, 1998, he issued the following Order:

'Last July 30, 1997, the Court ordered Atty. Fabre Luna, counsel for the defendants, who was given by the Court within fifteen (15) days from July 30, 1997 to formally offer exhibits marked during the pretrial.He has not submitted any up to this time.The Court directs the branch Clerk of Court of this Court to find out or verify whether the stenographers ordered by this Court on November 16, 1994 to submit their transcript have already done so, otherwise, she is ordered to draft that order requiring the above-named stenographers to submit their transcript of stenographic notes. Upon the completion of the transcript of stenographic notes, the Court will consider the incident (WPI) submitted for resolution.

SO ORDERED."

From then until his retirement on July 17, 1998, the transcript of stenographic notes had not been submitted to him by the Branch Clerk of Court.

The explanation of Judge Bautista, Jr. is unsatisfactory.

In the order of February 27, 1998, it appears that the court stenographers were ordered to submit their transcript of stenographic notes as early as November 16, 1994.For four (4) years, Judge Bautista, Jr. had been waiting for them to submit the notes.And four (4) months later, from February 27, 1998 when he directed his Branch Clerk of Court to verify the submission of the notes until the day of his retirement, he was still waiting for the said notes.He explained that "since the notes were not yet submitted to [him], he reasonably presumed that the same were not yet completed." ¹ Explanation dated April 28, 1999, p. 2.

The delay in the resolution of Civil Case No. Q-91-7822 cannot be blamed on the stenographers and Branch Clerk of Court.A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency of and mismanagement by court personnel. ² Nidua v. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581, 586 [1989].Court personnel are not his guardians. ³ Secretary of Justice v. Legaspi, 107 SCRA 233, 245 [1981].Proper and efficient court management is as much the judge's responsibility as the just and speedy adjudication of cases. ⁴ Agcaoili v. Ramos, 229 SCRA 705, 710 [1994]; Nidua v. Lazaro, supra .In the instant case, it was incumbent upon Judge Bautista, Jr. to take steps to ensure the prompt submission the transcript of stenographic notes, any delay in which necessarily affected the speedy administration of justice.It is the judge himself who is directly and unequivocally responsible for the proper discharge of his administrative responsibilities in the management of his court. ⁵ Rules 3.08 and 3.09, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct read:

"Rule 3.08.-- A judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel."

Rule 3.09.-- A judge should organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public Service and fidelity."

The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates the judge to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. ⁶ Rule 3.05, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct.In the case at bar, the resolution of the subject case was long overdue, and the period to resolve the same under Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution had long expired before Judge Bautista, Jr. retired.His failure to dispose of the case within the mandatory period of ninety (90) days is therefore inexcusable.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, Judge Marcelino Bautista, Jr. is admonished for his failure to resolve Civil Case NO. Q-91-7822 within the ninety-day period mandated under the Constitution.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Asst. Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE