April 2008 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2008 > April 2008 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2116 : April 09, 2008] OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. JUDGE JULES A. MEJIA, FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 54, ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN :
[A.M. No. RTJ-08-2116 : April 09, 2008]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. JUDGE JULES A. MEJIA, FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE, RTC, BR. 54, ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 09 April 2008:
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2116 (Office of the court Administrator v. Judge Jules A. Mejia, Former Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 54, Alaminos City, Pangasinan) [Formerly A.M. No. 08-2-87-RTC (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in the RTC, Br. 54, Alaminos City, Pangasinan). -In view of the compuslory retirement of the Hon. Jules A. Mejia on 29 November 2007, an audit was conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Alaminos, Pangasinan on 17-18 September 2007 by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and its Final Report dated 12 February 2008 is now before us for evaluation and approval.
The audit revealed a total of twenty-one (21) cases submitted for decision before Judge Mejia, eleven (11) of which were civil and ten (10) were criminal.[1] Of these, two (2) cases were left undecided upon his retirement. Civil Case No. A-2051 for Partition was submitted for decision on 27 June 2007 and was due on 25 September 2007 while Criminal Case No. 254-A for Homicide was ready for promulgation on 30 May 2007 and was due on 28 August 2007. However, the latter case was reset several times on motion of counsel for the accused. The last resetting was granted in an order dated 21 November 2007. The OCA reported that in the same criminal case, the rehearing of the testimonies of the witnesses necessitated by the failure to locate the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) were reset several times from 2004 to 2007, noting the undue delay in the retaking of testimony. Significantly, Administrative Circular No. 28 dated 3 July 1989 mandates that lack of TSN shall not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another judge and not the deciding judge, in which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety 90 days from the completion of the TSN within which to decide the same. The TSNs were completed on 30 May 2007 but the case had remained undecided until Judge Mejia's retirement.
The OCA likewise reported that there were twenty-eight (28) cases with incidents for resolution before RTC, Branch 54. Of these, only the pending incidents in five (5) cases were found unresolved beyond the reglementary period at the time of the audit and had remained unresolved until Judge Mejia's retirement. These were the following:
In addition, four (4) complaints were filed in August 2007 amd were acted upon only in November 2007.[2] Finally, there were four (4) civil cases with summons unserved as of the time of the audit.[3]
The OCA likewise observed that a number of criminal cases could be archived pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 dated 21 June 1993. After Judge Mejia's retirement, the pairing Judge had already acted upon some of the pending incidents and archived several of the criminal cases that could be archived.
Judge Mejia explained that he was designated Acting Presiding Judge of four courts, including his branch, namely: (1) RTC, Branch 69, Iba Zambales from the year 2003 to April 2004; (2) RTC, Branch 70, Burgos, Pangasinan from the year 2003 to April 2004, (3) RTC, Branch 55, Alaminos City from the year 2003 to December 2004, for which reason he failed to decide the two cases and resolve the pending incidents in the five cases aforementioned.
The OCA made the following recommendations, to wit:
Section 15(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution requires lower court judges to dispose of all cases or matters within theree months from submission. Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct Admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the period fixed by law. Judge Mejia undeniably failed to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the requisite period.
We have held that the delay in the disposition of even one case constitutes gross inefficiency which this Court will not tolerate.[5] Although in some of the cases, there were motions filed after they were submitted for decision, which circumstance could have contributed to the delay in their resolution, the fact remains that some instances of delay were attributable to causes within Judge Mejia's control, particularly the leniency by which he granted motions for extensions and for resetting of hearings. That he handled four courts at the same time is insufficient to exonerate him from liability especially since he was the Acting Presiding Judge of the aforesaid courts only from 2003 to 2004 and the cases he failed to decide and/or resolve date up to the year 2007.
We are not unmindful of the burden of heavy caseload heaped on the shoulders of every trial judge but such cannot excuse him from doing his mandated duty to resolve cases with diligence and dispatch.[6] Judges with heavy caseload should request the Court for an extension of the reglementary period within which to decide their cases if they think they cannot comply with their judicial duty.
It cannot be gainsaid that it is the sworn duty of judges to administer justice without undue delay under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied.[7] Judges are enjoined to decide cases with reasonable dispatch as any delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith in the judiciary. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions against them.[8]
The OCA recommended that a fine of P5,000.00 be imposed upon Judge Mejia. Under Seciton 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious charge punishable by suspension from office for not less than one (1) month or more than three (3) months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. As Judge Mejia had indeed received multiple-court assignments, we deem that fact a mitigating circumstance in his favor. Thus, the recommended fine of P5,000.00 by the OCA is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Jules A. Mejia liable for undue delay in rendering decisions/orders and imposes upon him a FINE of P5,000.00 to be deducted from his withheld retirement benefits.
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2116 (Office of the court Administrator v. Judge Jules A. Mejia, Former Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 54, Alaminos City, Pangasinan) [Formerly A.M. No. 08-2-87-RTC (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in the RTC, Br. 54, Alaminos City, Pangasinan). -In view of the compuslory retirement of the Hon. Jules A. Mejia on 29 November 2007, an audit was conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 54, Alaminos, Pangasinan on 17-18 September 2007 by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and its Final Report dated 12 February 2008 is now before us for evaluation and approval.
The audit revealed a total of twenty-one (21) cases submitted for decision before Judge Mejia, eleven (11) of which were civil and ten (10) were criminal.[1] Of these, two (2) cases were left undecided upon his retirement. Civil Case No. A-2051 for Partition was submitted for decision on 27 June 2007 and was due on 25 September 2007 while Criminal Case No. 254-A for Homicide was ready for promulgation on 30 May 2007 and was due on 28 August 2007. However, the latter case was reset several times on motion of counsel for the accused. The last resetting was granted in an order dated 21 November 2007. The OCA reported that in the same criminal case, the rehearing of the testimonies of the witnesses necessitated by the failure to locate the transcript of stenographic notes (TSN) were reset several times from 2004 to 2007, noting the undue delay in the retaking of testimony. Significantly, Administrative Circular No. 28 dated 3 July 1989 mandates that lack of TSN shall not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another judge and not the deciding judge, in which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety 90 days from the completion of the TSN within which to decide the same. The TSNs were completed on 30 May 2007 but the case had remained undecided until Judge Mejia's retirement.
The OCA likewise reported that there were twenty-eight (28) cases with incidents for resolution before RTC, Branch 54. Of these, only the pending incidents in five (5) cases were found unresolved beyond the reglementary period at the time of the audit and had remained unresolved until Judge Mejia's retirement. These were the following:
CASE NO. | DATE DEEMED SUBMITTED FOR RESOLUTION | DUE DATE |
| Civil Cases | ||
| A-2556 | 20 March 2007 + maximum of 30 days within which to comment on the incident for resolution | July 2007 |
| A-1841 | 8 June 2006 | September 2006 |
| A-3072 | 26 June 2007 | September 2007 |
| Criminal Cases | ||
| 4233-A to 4234-A | 16 March 2007 + 30 days and mailing allowance, if applicable | July 2007 |
| 4809-A | July 2007 | October 2007 |
In addition, four (4) complaints were filed in August 2007 amd were acted upon only in November 2007.[2] Finally, there were four (4) civil cases with summons unserved as of the time of the audit.[3]
The OCA likewise observed that a number of criminal cases could be archived pursuant to Administrative Circular No. 7-A-92 dated 21 June 1993. After Judge Mejia's retirement, the pairing Judge had already acted upon some of the pending incidents and archived several of the criminal cases that could be archived.
Judge Mejia explained that he was designated Acting Presiding Judge of four courts, including his branch, namely: (1) RTC, Branch 69, Iba Zambales from the year 2003 to April 2004; (2) RTC, Branch 70, Burgos, Pangasinan from the year 2003 to April 2004, (3) RTC, Branch 55, Alaminos City from the year 2003 to December 2004, for which reason he failed to decide the two cases and resolve the pending incidents in the five cases aforementioned.
The OCA made the following recommendations, to wit:
Premises considered, submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court are our recommendations that: (a) the Hon. Jules A. Mejia (Retired), RTC, Branch 54, Regional Trial Court, Alaminos City, be FINED in the amount of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for failure to decide two (2) cases and to resolve (5) cases with pending incidents which already fall beyond the reglementary period.[4]We adopt the findings and recommendations of the OCA.
Section 15(1) of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution requires lower court judges to dispose of all cases or matters within theree months from submission. Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct Admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the period fixed by law. Judge Mejia undeniably failed to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the requisite period.
We have held that the delay in the disposition of even one case constitutes gross inefficiency which this Court will not tolerate.[5] Although in some of the cases, there were motions filed after they were submitted for decision, which circumstance could have contributed to the delay in their resolution, the fact remains that some instances of delay were attributable to causes within Judge Mejia's control, particularly the leniency by which he granted motions for extensions and for resetting of hearings. That he handled four courts at the same time is insufficient to exonerate him from liability especially since he was the Acting Presiding Judge of the aforesaid courts only from 2003 to 2004 and the cases he failed to decide and/or resolve date up to the year 2007.
We are not unmindful of the burden of heavy caseload heaped on the shoulders of every trial judge but such cannot excuse him from doing his mandated duty to resolve cases with diligence and dispatch.[6] Judges with heavy caseload should request the Court for an extension of the reglementary period within which to decide their cases if they think they cannot comply with their judicial duty.
It cannot be gainsaid that it is the sworn duty of judges to administer justice without undue delay under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied.[7] Judges are enjoined to decide cases with reasonable dispatch as any delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith in the judiciary. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions against them.[8]
The OCA recommended that a fine of P5,000.00 be imposed upon Judge Mejia. Under Seciton 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered a less serious charge punishable by suspension from office for not less than one (1) month or more than three (3) months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. As Judge Mejia had indeed received multiple-court assignments, we deem that fact a mitigating circumstance in his favor. Thus, the recommended fine of P5,000.00 by the OCA is in order.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Jules A. Mejia liable for undue delay in rendering decisions/orders and imposes upon him a FINE of P5,000.00 to be deducted from his withheld retirement benefits.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Annex "A", pp. 1-2.
[2] Civil Case Nos. TCT 4353, 33916, 12444 and 1353.
[3] Civil Case Nos. A-3132, A-3052, A-3133 and A-3095.
[4] Rollo, p. 6.
[5] Atty. de Jesus v. Judge Mendoza-Parker, 387 Phil. 644, 656 (2000) citing Re: Judge Danilo M. Tenerife, 255 SCRA 184, 187 (1996).
[6] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branches 2 and 31, A.M. No. 04-1-56-RTC, 17 February 2005.
[7] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, Branch 46, A.M. No. 01-3-173-RTC, 9 December 2002.
[8] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, Branch 46, supra, citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Quizon, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1636, 13 February 2002; Echaves vs. Fernandez, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1596, 19 February 2002; Bangco v. Gatdula, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297, 7 March 2002; Arap v. Mustafa, A.M. No. SCC-01-7, 12 March 2002.
