March 2007 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2007 > March 2007 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. 06-4-220-RTC : March 14, 2007] RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 2, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR :
[A.M. No. 06-4-220-RTC : March 14, 2007]
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 2, BORONGAN, EASTERN SAMAR
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information is a resolution of the Third Division of this Court dated 14 MARCH 2007
A.M. No. 06-4-220-RTC - (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar)
RESOLUTION
Before us is a Motion for Reconsideration dated December 6, 2006 of our Decision[1] dated October 19, 2006 finding Judge Arnulfo O. Bugtas, guilty of gross inefficiency and imposing a fine in an amount equivalent to three months of his salary to be deducted from his retirement pay.
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Bugtas argues that the fine equivalent to three months salary is too harsh since under Section 9 of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, herein administrative matter is categorized as a less serious charge and sanctioned by the imposition of (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not more than P20,000.00. He contends that the three-month salary fine is more than the maximum penalty of P20,000.00 which the law requires.
Judge Bugtas further argues that if what only aggravated the penalty of fine equivalent to three months salary are his previous infractions, the same cannot be applied herein on the ground that the cited infractions are definitely not the same offenses in nature and character. To warrant a more severe penalty is the repetition of the same offense. Hence, the imposition of a severe penalty more than what is required by law because of previous infractions is not justifiable if the offense sanctioned is not the same in nature and character with that of the previous ones.
To bolster his argument, Judge Bugtas cites Canada v. Montecillo,[2] which favorably considered the heavy caseload as a valid reason for the delay in resolving cases, where the Court acknowledged his extra-heavy caseload, not merely in his own sala but also in his additionally assigned branches as well, and agrees with the imposition of a fine of only P1,000.00 as recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Judge Bugtas insists that he must also share the same ruling, in the interest of justice and equity.
Judge Bugtas prays, for humanitarian considerations, that the Decision of October 19, 2006 be reconsidered and the fine imposed be reduced to not more than P20,000.00 in order to extend to his family the comfort of decent living outside the judiciary without begging alms from relatives and friends for sustenance and support of his family, by paying him his due retirement benefits immediately.
Judge Bugtas's argument that the penalty imposed on him is too harsh, considering that Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court only imposed a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not more than P20,000.00, is misplaced.
It must be stressed that what the OCA recommended, and which the Court finds appropriate under the circumstances, is the penalty of suspension from office for three months without salary and other benefits. However, since the Court, in its Resolution of July 3, 2006,[3] approved the optional retirement of Judge Bugtas, the penalty of suspension can no longer be imposed on him, thus, the Court deemed it proper to impose a fine equivalent to three months salary.
While we agree with Judge Bugtas's argument that his previous infractions are not of the same nature and character as in the present case, it must be emphasized that the Court took into consideration the untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service which aggravated the seriousness of his offense.
As to Judge Bugtas's contention that his heavy caseload should be considered as the same was taken into consideration in Canada, we find the same untenable. In the said case, respondent's extra-heavy caseload was taken into consideration because respondent's failure to seasonably act in a case involves only a single case; while Judge Bugtas's case involves a total of 147 cases of which 14 cases were not decided within the 90-day reglementary period; 10 cases remained unacted upon since the time the cases were filed; and, 123 cases remained unacted upon for a considerable length of time. It is very clear that the cited case cannot be applied in the herein case as the same pales in comparison due to the very big discrepancy in the total number of cases involved - one against 147.
We reiterate that it is the duty of a judge to dispose of the court's business promptly. Proper and efficient court management is the responsibility of the judge - he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of official functions.[4]
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of October 19, 2006 as no substantial merit is presented to warrant reconsideration of the same.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. 06-4-220-RTC - (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar)
In his Motion for Reconsideration, Judge Bugtas argues that the fine equivalent to three months salary is too harsh since under Section 9 of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, herein administrative matter is categorized as a less serious charge and sanctioned by the imposition of (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not more than P20,000.00. He contends that the three-month salary fine is more than the maximum penalty of P20,000.00 which the law requires.
Judge Bugtas further argues that if what only aggravated the penalty of fine equivalent to three months salary are his previous infractions, the same cannot be applied herein on the ground that the cited infractions are definitely not the same offenses in nature and character. To warrant a more severe penalty is the repetition of the same offense. Hence, the imposition of a severe penalty more than what is required by law because of previous infractions is not justifiable if the offense sanctioned is not the same in nature and character with that of the previous ones.
To bolster his argument, Judge Bugtas cites Canada v. Montecillo,[2] which favorably considered the heavy caseload as a valid reason for the delay in resolving cases, where the Court acknowledged his extra-heavy caseload, not merely in his own sala but also in his additionally assigned branches as well, and agrees with the imposition of a fine of only P1,000.00 as recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA). Judge Bugtas insists that he must also share the same ruling, in the interest of justice and equity.
Judge Bugtas prays, for humanitarian considerations, that the Decision of October 19, 2006 be reconsidered and the fine imposed be reduced to not more than P20,000.00 in order to extend to his family the comfort of decent living outside the judiciary without begging alms from relatives and friends for sustenance and support of his family, by paying him his due retirement benefits immediately.
Judge Bugtas's argument that the penalty imposed on him is too harsh, considering that Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court only imposed a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not more than P20,000.00, is misplaced.
It must be stressed that what the OCA recommended, and which the Court finds appropriate under the circumstances, is the penalty of suspension from office for three months without salary and other benefits. However, since the Court, in its Resolution of July 3, 2006,[3] approved the optional retirement of Judge Bugtas, the penalty of suspension can no longer be imposed on him, thus, the Court deemed it proper to impose a fine equivalent to three months salary.
While we agree with Judge Bugtas's argument that his previous infractions are not of the same nature and character as in the present case, it must be emphasized that the Court took into consideration the untruthful statements in his Certificates of Service which aggravated the seriousness of his offense.
As to Judge Bugtas's contention that his heavy caseload should be considered as the same was taken into consideration in Canada, we find the same untenable. In the said case, respondent's extra-heavy caseload was taken into consideration because respondent's failure to seasonably act in a case involves only a single case; while Judge Bugtas's case involves a total of 147 cases of which 14 cases were not decided within the 90-day reglementary period; 10 cases remained unacted upon since the time the cases were filed; and, 123 cases remained unacted upon for a considerable length of time. It is very clear that the cited case cannot be applied in the herein case as the same pales in comparison due to the very big discrepancy in the total number of cases involved - one against 147.
We reiterate that it is the duty of a judge to dispose of the court's business promptly. Proper and efficient court management is the responsibility of the judge - he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of official functions.[4]
ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolves to DENY the Motion for Reconsideration of the Decision of October 19, 2006 as no substantial merit is presented to warrant reconsideration of the same.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) LUCITA ABJELINA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Penned by former Chief Justice Artemio V. Panganiban.
[2] 421 Phil. 814 (2001).
[3] Re: Application for Optional Retirement under R.A. No. 910, as Amended by R.A. No. 5095 of Hon. Arnulfo O. Bugtas, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar, A.M. No. 12360-Ret., July 3, 2006.
[4] Re: Report on the On-The-Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC Branches 45 and 53, Bacolod City, A.M. No. 00-2-65-RTC, August 16, 2005, 467 SCRA 20, 26.
