February 2011 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
[A.M. No. RTJ-05-1940 (Formerly A.M. No. 05-5-335-RTC) : February 23, 2011]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR V. JUDGE LEONILO B. APITA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 7, TACLOBAN CITY
A.M. No. RTJ-05-1940 [Formerly A.M. No. 05-5-335-RTC] (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Leonilo B. Apita, Regional Trial Court, Branch 7, Tacloban City).
The Regional Trial Court, Branch 7 (RTC 7), of Tacloban City underwent a judicial audit and physical inventory from March 2 to 12, 2003. Judge Leonilo B. Apita presided over RTC 7, a special court for family and agrarian cases. Judge Crisostomo L. Garrido assisted him.[1]
The audit report revealed that RTC 7 had 440 criminal cases and 207 civil cases for a total of 647 cases. At the time the audit was done, Judge Apita had not decided 32 cases,[2] all submitted for decision, within the 90-day reglementary period; he also had not resolved the pending incidents in 4 cases within the required time;[3] and, further, he failed to act on 67 cases for a considerable length of time.
As a result, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge Apita on January 21, 2004 to explain why he had not decided the cases long submitted for decision and resolved the incidents that had been long pending. The OCA also required him to inform the Court of the action he shall have taken on them. It further required him to explain why he had not acted on 55 cases for a considerable length of time.[4] Lastly, the OCA reminded Judge Apita of Administrative Circular 03-99 dated January 15, 1999 regarding the grant of postponements.[5]
As for Judge Garrido, the OCA directed him to explain why he had not acted on three civil cases assigned to him for a considerable length of time.
The OCA also directed RTC 7 Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Teresita J. Calleja to inform the Court of the status of certain criminal cases[6] listed in the audit report and explain why certain cases had not been acted upon from the time of their filing and why she had not acted for a considerable length of time on the cases where she had been appointed Commissioner.
Both Atty. Calleja and Judge Garrido submitted the explanations required of them. Judge Apita did not.
Because Judge Apita was slated to retire on July 23, 2005, the OCA conducted another judicial audit of RTC 7 on November 14, 2004. The audit report noted an increase in its case load from 647 to 679 cases. Of these, 469 were criminal while 210 were civil. RTC 7 had 34 cases submitted for decision that remained undecided despite the lapse of the period provided for it. Further, out of these 34 cases, 9 cases[7] were already noted during the first audit. The audit noted 10 cases with pending incidents that had not been resolved within the allowable time and 38 cases which had not been acted upon for a considerable length of time.
The audit also noted that Judge Garrido had two cases, already submitted for decision, which he had not decided within the allowable time; he had one case with a pending incident and 9 cases with no further action.
The OCA sent another Memorandum dated January 5, 2005 to Judge Apita and directed him: (a) to comply within 90 days with the Court's January 21, 2004 Memorandum related to the first audit; (b) to explain within the same period the causes of delay in deciding the 34 cases, to decide those cases also within the same period and to submit a monthly report of accomplishment together with copies of the decisions to the OCA; (c) to explain and resolve within 30 days the 10 cases with pending incidents which had remained unresolved and to submit copies of the corresponding orders to the OCA (d) to inform the OCA of the status of the different pending incidents and cases which were still within the reglementary period and inform it whether the cases noted during the second audit had been set for hearing; and (e) to explain the reason why he had not acted on certain cases for a considerable length of time and to immediately act on the same and submit copies of the actions he had taken.
Further, the OCA directed Judge Garrido and Atty. Calleja to explain their failure to act on cases for a considerable length of time, to which both filed their respective explanation. Judge Apita, however, again failed to submit any explanation or comment.
On July 13, 2005 the Court issued a resolution,[8] re-docketing the Judicial Audit Report as an administrative complaint against Judge Apita. The OCA, in its Memorandum, found Judge Apita guilty of dishonesty in submitting false certificates of service and of gross inefficiency for his failure to decide and resolve cases within the 90-day reglementary period.
The OCA recommends the imposition of a fine of P50,000.00 on Judge Apita to be deducted from his retirement benefits. He retired on July 23, 2005.
The fact that Judge Apita chose not to submit the explanations required of him speaks clearly of his failure to decide cases ripe for decision and resolve pending incidents within the time set by the Constitution.[9] He had, as of the second audit, not decided 34 cases that were ready for decision. Of these, 9 were in the list of undecided cases brought to his attention during the first audit. His omission constitutes a dereliction of his duty to dispense justice promptly.[10]
Although the OCA finds Judge Apita also guilty of submitting false certificates of service, the Court cannot affirm such finding, given that he was not given the opportunity to defend himself against that charge.
Under Rule 140, as amended, the undue delay in rendering a decision, which amounts to gross inefficiency, is classified as a less serious charge which carries with it the penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.[11] Since this is Judge Apita's first case for which he has been found guilty,[12] and, in view of his retirement on July 23, 2005, a fine of P10,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits would be reasonable.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Leonilo B. Apita GUILTY of gross inefficiency and imposes on him a FINE of P10,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
By:
(Sgd.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZON
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Designated as Assisting Judge of RTC, Branch 7, Tacloban City on May 23, 2002 pursuant to Administrative Order 26-2002 dated March 18, 2002.[2] 22 criminal cases and 10 civil cases while 1 criminal case, Criminal Case 24-18 and 6 civil cases, are still within the 90-day period.
[3] 1 criminal case and 3 civil cases.
[4] 6 criminal cases and 49 civil cases.
[5] It was noted in the report that Judge Apita is lenient in granting postponements. In Civil Case 97-02-22 entitled "Jesusa Gomez Pimentel v. Gomez Funeral Homes"', the pre-trial conference was reset 20 times while the arraignment of the accused in Criminal Case 01-06-402 for malicious mischief was reset 12 times.
[6] Criminal Cases 01-02-783 and 98-09-371.
[7] Criminal Cases 97-09-377, 98-03-120, 93-07-424, 2448 and Civil Case Nos. 99-04-55, 97-08-159, 97-11-192, 00-01-01 and 98-04-58.
[8] The Resolution also advised Atty. Calleja to be more prudent in the discharge of her functions with a warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with severely by the court and advised Judge Garrido to strictly comply with Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and warned that the repetition of !he same will be dealt with severely by the Court.
[9] Spouses Dumaua v. Judge Ramirez, 503 Phil. 1, 4 (2005).
[10] See Section 5, Canon 6; The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
[11] Report on the Judicial Audit conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Cebu City, 496 Phil. 478, 488 (2005).
[12] OCA-IPI No. 02-16I5-RTJ for Grave Misconduct v. Judge Leonilo C. Apita, Branch 7, Tacloban City. Complaint Dismissed on September 3. 2003; OCA-IPI No. 99-873-RD for Gross Ignorance of the Law, Grave Abuse of Authority and Acts Prejudicial to the Service v. Judge Leonilo C. Apita, Branch 7, Tacloban City. Complaint Dismissed on January 1, 2000, cited in Provincial Prosecutor Visbal v. Judge Buban, 481 Phil. 111, 119 (2004).
