AM 04 1 56 RTC; (February, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. 04-1-56-RTC; February 17, 2005
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC, BRANCHES 2 AND 31, TAGUM CITY
FACTS
This administrative case arose from a judicial audit of the Regional Trial Court, Branches 2 and 31 in Tagum City, both presided by Judge Erasto D. Salcedo, who compulsorily retired on November 25, 2003. The audit report revealed that Judge Salcedo failed to decide numerous criminal and civil cases within the constitutionally mandated 90-day period and failed to resolve pending motions in several other cases. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed him to explain the delays.
In his defense, Judge Salcedo explained that he had eventually decided or resolved all the cited cases before his retirement, attributing the delays to his heavy caseload, the fact that he was presiding over two branches, and the delayed submission of memoranda by the parties. The OCA, in its evaluation, noted that while he had requested extensions of time, such requests were made only after the reglementary periods had already lapsed.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Erasto D. Salcedo is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and orders.
RULING
Yes, Judge Salcedo is administratively liable. The 1987 Constitution and pertinent Supreme Court circulars mandate judges to decide cases and resolve matters within 90 days from submission. Failure to comply constitutes gross inefficiency and neglect of duty, which is a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that while heavy caseload is a common challenge, it does not excuse non-compliance. A judge burdened with work is required to seek a timely extension from the Court before the reglementary period expires, which Judge Salcedo failed to do.
The Court affirmed the OCA’s recommendation, applying the mitigating circumstances that Judge Salcedo had eventually disposed of the cases before retirement and had a record of deciding a high volume of cases. Consequently, instead of the more severe penalty of suspension, a fine was deemed appropriate. Judge Erasto D. Salcedo was found guilty of undue delay and fined Ten Thousand One Hundred Pesos (P10,100.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits.