AM 00 2 65 RTC; (February, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. 00-2-65-RTC; February 15, 2005
REPORT ON THE ON-THE-SPOT JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCHES 45 AND 53, BACOLOD CITY
FACTS
A judicial audit in September 1999 of RTC Branches 45 and 53 in Bacolod City, presided by Judges Edgardo L. De Los Santos and Pepito B. Gellada respectively, revealed numerous unresolved cases and incidents beyond the 90-day reglementary period. The Court, in a 2000 Resolution, directed both judges to explain the delays, decide specified cases, and report compliance. Judge De Los Santos eventually complied, deciding nearly all cases, though his submission was late and required repeated extensions. Judge Gellada submitted an incomplete explanation, reporting resolution of only two specifically cited cases but failing to address several other inherited and inactive cases listed in the directive, despite subsequent follow-up orders from the Court.
ISSUE
Whether Judges De Los Santos and Gellada are administratively liable for inefficiency and failure to decide cases within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, both judges are administratively liable, but with differing degrees of culpability and corresponding penalties. The legal logic rests on the constitutional mandate and judicial ethics requiring judges to dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within required periods. Undue delay constitutes a violation of this duty and erodes public faith in the judiciary. For Judge De Los Santos, while his eventual compliance was substantial, his initial failure and the need for multiple extensions to explain and decide the significant backlog demonstrated inefficiency. However, his near-total compliance mitigated his liability, resulting in a fine of P5,000.00.
For Judge Gellada, his liability is more severe. His explanation was incomplete and evasive, ignoring directives regarding several inherited and dormant cases. His failure to report on these cases despite a subsequent show-cause order from the Court constituted gross inefficiency and indifference to lawful directives. The Court emphasized that judges must diligently monitor all cases, including those inherited, and cannot use incomplete transcripts as a perpetual excuse without taking proactive steps to secure them. His gross inefficiency warranted a heavier fine of P11,000.00 and specific directives for immediate compliance. The Branch Clerks of Court were largely absolved, having complied with their ancillary duties concerning transcript completion and reporting.