[A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC. October 10, 2000]

RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES PENDING BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

EN BANC

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated OCT 10 2000.

A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC (Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Pending Before the Sandiganbayan.)

On August 2, 2000, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP), through its National President, Atty. Arthur D. Lim, filed with the Supreme Court a copy of the resolution adopted by its Board of Governors, dated July 29, 2000. The resolution focused on the numerous complaints received by the IBP from its members regarding the "serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan." 1 Resolution of the Board of Governors of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines, Rollo, p. 3.The IBP resolved:

"(1) To recommend to the Supreme Court that Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 be made applicable to the Sandiganbayan in regard (to) cases over which the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction; and

"(2) To recommend to the Supreme Court an inquiry into the causes of delay in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases before the Sandiganbayan for the purpose of enacting measures intended at avoiding such delays." 2 Ibid , p. 4.

On August 8, 2000, the Court required Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena to comment on the letter of the IBP and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayan cases submitted for decision, or with motion for reconsideration pending resolution, indicating the dates they were deemed submitted for decision or resolution, both within twenty (20) days from notice. 3 Rollo , p. 5.

On September 27, 2000, the Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, received the compliance filed by Presiding Justice Garchitorena. The "Compliance" showed that the Sandiganbayan had a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases submitted for decision and motions for reconsideration, which had remained unresolved over thirty (30) days from submission. 4 Rollo , 6.

This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Decision-making is the primordial and most important duty of a member of the bench. 5 Rivera v. Lamorena, 280 SCRA 633, 635 [1997].Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency 6 Cueva v. Villanueva, 305 SCRA 459, 467 [1999].that warrants disciplinary sanction, including fine, 7 Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-Lapu City, 289 SCRA 398, 406 ; Sta. Ana. v. Arinday, Jr. 283 SCRA 392, 395 [1997].suspension 8 Bolalin v. Occiano, A. M. No. -MTJ-96-1 104, January 14, 1997.and even dismissal. 9 Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, 292 SCRA 8, 25 ; Abarquez vs. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109, 123 ; Longboan v. Hon. Polig, 186 SCRA 557 [1990].The rule particularly applies to justices of the Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it into disrepute. 10 Sta. Ana. v. Arinday, Jr., supra Note 7, at p. 394 [1997].Delays can not be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the nation's determination to succeed in its war against graft.

IN VIEW WHEREOF, the Court hereby resolves to:

1. Note the Compliance filed by Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena dated September 26, 2000;

2. Require the IBP to file its reply on the Compliance within a non-extendible period of twenty (20) days from notice hereof stating particularly if the IBP agreed with the accuracy of the compliance;

3. Require the Special- Prosecutor, Office of the Ombudsman to file his comment on the Compliance within a non-extendible period of twenty (20) days from notice hereof. Let copy be given to the Special Prosecutor;

4. Require the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan to submit, within a non-extendible period of ten (10) days from notice, more particulars on the cases listed in the compliance, namely:

(a) state the offense charged or nature of the action (if civil);

(b) date the cases were originally filed;

(c) how many cases involved prisoners held without bail;

(d) how many accused are on bail?

(e) how many accused were granted bail but are unable to post bail due to poverty or other reasons?

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) LUZVIMINDA D. PUNO

Clerk of Court�


Back to Home | Back to Main

 

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE

PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS

QUICK SEARCH

cralaw

 







chanrobles.com





ChanRobles Legal Resources:

ChanRobles On-Line Bar Review

ChanRobles Internet Bar Review : www.chanroblesbar.com

ChanRobles MCLE On-line

ChanRobles Lawnet Inc. - ChanRobles MCLE On-line : www.chanroblesmcleonline.com