ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[ A.M. No. 98-9-276-RTC. March 7, 2000]

RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 7 2000.

A.M. No. 98-9-276-RTC (Re: Report on the judicial audit conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 20 and 21, Mambusao Capiz.)

In the course of the judicial audit made on 3 and 4 March 1998, it was reported that Judge Julius L. Abela, RTC-Br. 17, Roxas City, left several unresolved cases submitted before him when he was still the Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 21 and the Acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 20, both in Mambusao, Capiz.

Acting on the report and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), the Court issued its Resolution of 29 September 1998 directing Judge Abela to explain in writing why no administrative sanction should be imposed on him for his failure to decide within the 90-day reglementary period: (a) seven (7) criminal cases submitted for his decision which he totally tried when he was the Acting Presiding Judge of RTC-Br 20, Mambusao, Capiz; (b) three (3) civil cases he partly heard when he was the Acting Presiding Judge of said Br. 20; (c) nine (9) cases which he totally tried when he was the Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 21, Mambusao, Capiz and (d) sixteen (16) cases submitted for his decision which he partly tried when he was the Presiding Judge of said Br. 21, and to resolve all thirty-five (35) cases within four (4) months from notice. Accordingly, the Court directed the Financial Management Officer of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to withhold the salary of Judge Abela pending his full compliance with the directive of the Court.

In the same Resolution, the Court likewise directed the Branch Clerk of Court of Filpia del Castillo, RTC-Br. 21, Mambusao, Capiz, to transmit immediately and with proper receipts to Judge Abela for decision making the records of Civil Case No. M-226, M-597, M-682, M-759, M-799, M-873, M-884, M-1023, M-1128, M-1153 abd LRC N-580-21. In her compliance of 6 November 1998 Atty. Del Castillo reported that she has forwarded the records of the foregoing cases to Judge Abela.

On 15 December 1998 the OCA received a copy of an Order of Judge Abela dated 23 November 1998 directing the return to RTC-Br. 20 and 21, Mambusao, Capiz, of those cases transmitted by Atty. del Castillo, as well as all the other cases submitted before him in RTC, Mambusao, Capiz whose records were already with him in his sala at the RTC-Br. 17, Roxas City. Judge Abela based his Order on the 22 July 1998 Resolution of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 98-3-114-RTC: Re Cases Left Undecided by Judge Sergio D. Mabunay, RTC, Branch 24, Manila, and argued that his Resolution decreed that "cases left undecided by a Judge who is transferred or assigned to another station are the responsibility of the Judge who takes over the branch, even if these cases were tried and submitted for decision to the judge who left." The Resolution further stated that "(t)he Presiding Judge who has been transferred to another station can not, on his own, take with him to his new station any case submitted for decision without first securing the formal authority from the court administrator."

But the OCA was of a different view. In its Memorandum dated 18 March 1999 the OCA declared that "(t)he September 29, 1998 Resolution x x x directed Judge Abela to decide the thirty-five (35) cases found submitted for decision before him and he has no other option but to comply with that directive. He cannot evade complying with this directive by citing the decision in A.M. No. 98-3-114-RTC. The latter pertains to a case where there is no directive for the judge to whom the case was submitted for decision. In this present case, he was directed by the court."

Consequently, the OCA recommended inter alia that the branch clerk of court of RTC-Br. 20 and 21, Mambusao, Capiz, be directed to return all the records transmitted to their respective offices pursuant to the 23 November 1998 Order of Judge Abela and that Judge Abela be directed to comply with the Resolution of 29 September 1998.

In a letter dated 15 February 2000 addressed to Senior Associate Justice Josue N. Bellosillo, Chairman of the Second Division, Judge Abela manifested that of the cases mentioned in the 29 September 1998 Resolution he has already decided seven (7) "invariably upon the request of the parties/counsels and/or upon order of the court administrator." He further stated that he was "not adverse to decide the other cases but to do so would run counter to and be violative of the rule in Administrative Matter No. 98-3-114-RTC entitled Re: Cases left undecided by Judge Sergio D. Mabunay, RTC-Br. 24, Manila, which is the prevailing rule x x x x"

The instant case is a classic example of the "renvoir" of records which the Court in the Mabunay case purposely sought to avoid. We see here the needless transfer of court cases from one station to another. In an effort to remove this sad spectacle from the judicial scene, the Court in Mabunay said:

Basically, a case once raffled to a branch belongs to that branch unless re-raffled or otherwise transferred to another branch in accordance with established procedure. When the Presiding Judge of that branch to which a case has been raffled or assigned is transferred to another station, he leaves behind all the cases he tried with the branch to which they belong. He does not take these cases with him even if he tried them and the same were submitted to him for decision. The judge who takes over the branch inherits all these cases and assumes full responsibility for them. He may decide them as they are his cases, unless any of the parties moves that his case be decided by the judge who substantially heard the evidence and before whom the case was submitted for decision. If a party therefore so desires, he may simply address his request or motion to the incumbent Presiding Judge who shall then endorse the request to the Office of the Court Administrator so that the latter may in turn endorse the matter to the judge who substantially heard the evidence and before whom the case was submitted for decision. This will avoid the "renvoir" of records and the possibility of an irritant between the judges concerned, as one may question the authority of the other to transfer the case to the former. If coursed through the Office of the Court Administrator. The judge who is asked to decide the case is not expected to complain, otherwise he may be liable for insubordination and his judicial profile may be adversely affected. Upon direction of the Court Administrator, or any of his Deputy Court Administrators acting in his behalf, the judge before whom a particular case was earlier submitted for decision may be compelled to decide the case accordingly x x x x

Under the circumstances we find that there is no legal and factual basis to withhold the salaries of Judge Abela. He has not committed any act which merits administrative sanction. He simply relied on the Mabunay ruling which is controlling in situations where there are unresolved case left behind by a judge who has been transferred to another station. It is not for Judge Abela to determine whether to decide those cases in his former station. Under the Mabunay ruling, it is incumbent upon the succeeding judge to inform the parties that the previous judge who heard the case, at least substantially, and before whom it was submitted for decision, may be required to decide the same. In this event, and upon request of any of the parties, the succeeding judge may request the Court Administrator to formally endorse the case for decision to the judge before who, it was previously submitted for decision. In other words, Judge Abela can decide those cases substantially heard by him or submitted to him for decision wherever he may be only if so requested by any of the parties and endorsed by the incumbent presiding judge through the OCA. We cannot find any rationale for holding him administratively liable for abiding by the procedures set forth in the Mabunay case which in the final analysis should be considered as the guidepost from which the judges concerned should take their bearings.

WHEREFORE, the 28 September 1998 Resolution of the Court is considered accordingly MODIFIED. In the absence of any request from the parties and endorsed by the incumbent Presiding Judge of the RTC-Br. 20 and 21, both of Mambusao, Capiz, through the Office of the Court Administrator, all unresolved cases which were substantially heard by Judge Julius L. Abela or submitted to him for decision while he was the Presiding Judge of the RTC-Br. 20 and 21, should remain in those branches. Consequently, the Financial Management Officer, Office of the Court Administrator, is DIRECTED to immediately release to Judge Abela his salaries and all other benefits due him. Pardo, J., is abroad on official business.

Very truly yours,

LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court

(Sgd.) MA. LUISA D. VILLARAMA

Assistant Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE