ChanRobles Virtual law Library

<[A.M. No. MTJ-03-1512. October 15, 2003]

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of this court dated OCT 15 2003.

Adm. Matter No. MTJ-03-1512 (Re: Request of Judge Lollie T. Ureta-Villaruel, MCTC, Banga-Libacao-Madalag, Aklan for Extension of Time to Decide Cases.)

Judge Lollie T. Ureta-Villaruel, Presiding Judge of the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Banga-Libacao-Madalag, Aklan, wrote the Court Administrator on April 5, 2002, asking for an extension of 90 days from March 20, 2002 within which to decide seven cases she inherited from then Acting Judge Emmanuel T. Mationg, namely:

(1)�������� Criminal Case No. 2425-L for Grave Threats

(2)�������� Civil Case No. (4747)-375-B for Recovery of Possession with Reconveyance andDamages

(3)�������� Civil Case No. 462-L for Forcible Entry and Damages

(4)�������� Criminal Case No. 2432-L for Grave Oral Defamation

(5)�������� Civil Case No. 492-L for Forcible Entry

(6)�������� Civil Case No. 509-B for Forcible Entry with Preliminary Injunction

(7)�������� Civil Case No. 510-B for Damages

The Court, in its Resolution dated July 3, 2002, granted Judge Ureta-Villaruel 90 days from March 20, 2002, within which to decide these cases, and required her to submit a copy of the decisions immediately upon rendition as proof of compliance with her undertaking. [1] cralaw

On May 31, 2002, Judge Ureta-Villaruel submitted copies of her decisions in Civil Case No. 458-M (not in the list of those undecided cases), Criminal Case No. 2425-L, and Criminal Case No. 2432-L, [2] cralaw at the same time asking for another extension of 60 days within which to decide the remaining 5 cases heard by Judge Mationg.

On October 2, 2002, Judge Ureta-Villaruel again asked for time until the end of December 2002 within which to finish her decisions which per inventory turned out to be six undisposed cases and not five as she stated in her letter of May 31, 2002. Judge Ureta-Villaruel avers that she had a miscarriage in February 2002 and was confined in the hospital for two days; she terminated a 19-day trial and rendered decisions in two election protest cases on the first week of August; she was admitted to the hospital on September 12, 2002, as a result of hypertension; [3] cralaw and that despite these, she was able to decide eleven cases on the merits and dispose of fifty-six cases since she assumed position in January 2002 until September 2002. [4] cralaw

The Court granted her second request per Resolution dated December 9, 2002, with warning that no further extensions shall be granted, and again, requiring her to submit copies of the decisions within ten days after promulgation. [5] cralaw

Finding that Judge Ureta-Villaruel has yet to comply with the Court's Resolution dated December 9, 2002 requiring her to submit copies of her decisions and noting that she filed a third extension despite the previous warning, the Court issued a Resolution on April 21, 2003, requiring her to show cause within ten days why she should not be administratively dealt with for failing to decide Civil Case Nos. (4747)-375-B, 462-L, 492-L, 509-B, 510-B and 511 -M within the period she requested. [6] cralaw

In her Compliance, Judge Ureta-Villaruel explained that: (1) Civil Case Nos. 462-L, 509-B, 510-B and 511-M have already been decided and copies thereof were transmitted to the Court via registered mail on March 6, [7] cralaw February 27, [8] cralaw April 22, [9] cralaw and February 27, 2003, [10] cralaw respectively; (2) Civil Case No. (4747)-375-B remains undecided because of its voluminous records, while Civil Case No. 492-L has two other related cases (Civil Case Nos. 536-L and 533-L) in its pre-trial stages, all of which she is trying to settle, together with another related case, Civil Case No. 490-M; [11] cralaw (3) she is now in the process of preparing the decisions in the two remaining inherited cases; and (4) because of her hypertension, she slowed down a bit in her work. Judge Ureta-Villaruel apologized for her failure, and said that she is willing to suffer the consequences and accept the action to be taken by the Court. [12] cralaw

In its report, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended that Judge Ureta-Villaruel be fined in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (P2, 000.00).

The Court has always exhorted all members of the judiciary to abide by their sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay. No less than the Constitution dictates that cases filed before the lower courts must be decided within three months from date of submission. [13] cralaw Failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency warranting a disciplinary sanction. [14] cralaw While serious illness or circumstances beyond control may be a valid reason for a judge's inability to perform his official duties and functions, it certainly will not exculpate him from any liability that the law imposes. [15] cralaw

In deference to the mandate of the law, the Court, in recent cases, imposed the penalty of fine on judges for their failure to decide cases within the reglementary period. In Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr., the Court imposed a P2,000.00 fine on respondent Judge for leaving ten undecided cases before his retirement from the service. [16] cralaw In Ricafranca, Jr. vs. Lopez, [17] cralaw Judge Lopez was fined P5,000.00 for her excessive delay in deciding a criminal case. The Court noted that it was not the first time that an administrative case was filed against the judge for delay in deciding a case. The Court, however, took into consideration the fact that there were circumstances beyond her control, e.g., she was stricken with a grave illness and she also had to take care of her ailing brother and sister, that prevented her from giving her full attention to her official duties and responsibilities, which served to mitigate her culpability. In Maquiran vs. Lopez, [18] cralaw a fine of P5,000.00 was again imposed on Judge Lopez for her failure to decide a civil case for a period of five years.

In the present case, we find that Judge Ureta-Villaruel's delay is not as serious as those previously dealt with by the Court. In a span of one year from her assumption in office, she was able to resolve six of the eight cases she inherited from Judge Mationg. This, aside from the eleven cases that she decided and fifty-six other cases that she likewise disposed of within the period of January to September 2002. [19] cralaw What magnified the delay is her failure to apprise the Court of the status of the remaining cases. As she herself requested, she asked until the end of December 2002 within which to decide the remaining cases, which the OCA recommended to be granted for the last time. [20] cralaw In fact, the OCA noted that even if the Court would allow her the extension she prayed for, still, she failed to comply with the Court's Resolution dated December 9, 2002, requiring her to submit copies of the decisions on the remaining cases. [21] cralaw Judge Ureta-Villaruel should have been more circumspect in complying with said Resolution and in her obligation to file her additional requests for extension before the expiration of the extended period.

The Court, however, is not so insensitive so as to ignore her valid reasons, i.e., miscarriage and hypertension; neither is the Court unmindful of her efforts to judiciously dispose of her cases. Hence, a reprimand should suffice in this case.

WHEREFORE, Judge Lollie T. Ureta-Villaruel of the MCTC, Banga-Libacao-Madalag, Aklan, is hereby REPRIMANDED, with warning that a similar offense in the future will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.)TOMASITA B. MAGAY-DRIS
Clerk of Court

Endnotes:

[1] cralaw Rollo, p. 5

[2] cralaw Id., pp. 7-30.

[3] cralaw Ibid.

[4] cralaw Ibid.

[5] cralaw Id., p. 35.

[6] cralaw Id., p.42.

[7] cralaw Id., p. 51.

[8] cralaw Id., p. 58.

[9] cralaw Id. p. 65.

[10] cralaw Id., p. 58.

[11] cralaw Id., p. 45.

[12] cralaw Id., p. 46.

[13] cralaw Article VIII, Section 15(1) states: All 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.

[14] cralaw Ricafranca, Jr. vs. Lopez, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1583, November 15, 2000, 344 SCRA 583, 587.

[15] cralaw Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Quizon, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1636, February 13, 2002.

[16] cralaw A.M. No. 98-10-138-MTCC, April 21, 1999, 306 SCRA 50.

[17] cralaw Supra0.

[18] cralaw A.M. No. RTJ-00-1606, June 20, 2001, 359 SCRA 40.

[19] cralaw Rollo, p. 37.

[20] cralaw Id., pp. 40-41.

[21] cralaw Ibid.

Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011	2012
2013

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

1901	1902	1903	1904	1905	1906	1907	1908
1909	1910	1911	1912	1913	1914	1915	1916
1917	1918	1919	1920	1921	1922	1923	1924
1925	1926	1927	1928	1929	1930	1931	1932
1933	1934	1935	1936	1937	1938	1939	1940
1941	1942	1943	1944	1945	1946	1947	1948
1949	1950	1951	1952	1953	1954	1955	1956
1957	1958	1959	1960	1961	1962	1963	1964
1965	1966	1967	1968	1969	1970	1971	1972
1973	1974	1975	1976	1977	1978	1979	1980
1981	1982	1983	1984	1985	1986	1987	1988
1989	1990	1991	1992	1993	1994	1995	1996
1997	1998	1999	2000	2001	2002	2003	2004
2005	2006	2007	2008	2009	2010	2011