AM 95 3 89 RTC; (August, 1995) (Digest)
A.M. No. 95-3-89-RTC August 23, 1995
REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC, BRANCH 16, OF LAOAG CITY
FACTS
A judicial audit was conducted on the Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Laoag City, following the compulsory retirement of Presiding Judge Luis Bello, Jr. The audit team found that, of the court’s 99 pending cases, 16 had been submitted for decision. For 12 of these cases, the 90-day period to decide had not yet lapsed at the time of the audit. However, in five civil cases, the constitutional and statutory period had already expired without a decision being rendered. Upon closer examination, the Court determined that one of these five cases, Civil Case No. 10211, was erroneously included as the 90-day period for its decision had not yet expired when Judge Bello retired. Thus, the actual count of undecided cases beyond the reglementary period was four.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Luis Bello, Jr. is administratively liable for his failure to decide four cases within the mandatory 90-day period.
RULING
Yes, Judge Bello is administratively liable, but with mitigating circumstances for three of the four cases. The Constitution mandates that lower collegiate courts must decide cases within twelve months, and all other lower courts within three months, from submission. The Code of Judicial Conduct similarly requires judges to dispose of court business promptly. The Court consistently holds that failure to decide within the period constitutes gross inefficiency, as delay erodes public faith in the judiciary. For Civil Case No. 9163, submitted for decision in March 1991, Judge Bello offered no valid excuse for the nearly four-year delay. The Court found this delay inexcusably long, and neither his subsequent attempt to draft a decision post-retirement nor the lack of transcribed stenographic notes could exonerate him, as judges must decide cases with or without transcripts.
However, for the three other cases (Civil Case Nos. 9007, 9959, and 10458), submitted in 1994, mitigating factors were present. The record showed Judge Bello was diligent, having the lowest pending caseload in his region for a period and disposing of 34 cases in his last quarter of service. Furthermore, his advanced age and failing health prior to retirement were considered. The Court appreciates such efforts and mitigating circumstances. Consequently, while liability is affirmed for failing to uphold the duty of prompt disposition, the imposition of a fine was deemed sufficient, considering the mitigation for three of the four delayed cases.