G.R. No. A.M. No. 04-3-63-MTCC November 23, 2004
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE MTCC, BRANCH 5, BACOLOD CITY

FACTS

A judicial audit of MTCC, Branch 5, Bacolod City, presided by Judge Remegio V. Rojo, revealed multiple administrative deficiencies. The audit found 42 cases submitted for decision that were decided beyond the 90-day reglementary period. Judge Rojo also failed to act on 10 civil cases for a considerable time, left 11 motions unresolved, and did not set cases for hearing for one week each month. Furthermore, he failed to require bail in 21 Batas Pambansa Blg. 22 cases where the accused remained at liberty, and he allowed the presentation of prosecution evidence in a criminal case despite the accused not having been arraigned.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge Rojo to explain these lapses and to take corrective action. Judge Rojo complied by deciding all overdue cases and submitting explanations. He attributed the failure to require bail to outstanding warrants or existing bonds he was unaware of, and the premature trial to an erroneous notation by his clerk. He also stated his practice of not setting hearings for one week monthly was for writing decisions.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Remegio V. Rojo is administratively liable for the various infractions found during the judicial audit.

RULING

Yes, Judge Rojo is administratively liable. The Court found his explanations insufficient. Regarding the undue delay in deciding cases and resolving incidents, the constitutional and statutory mandate to decide cases within 90 days is mandatory. His failure constituted gross neglect of duty, aggravated by his submission of Certificates of Service that falsely attested no pending matters were beyond the period. His claim that the one-week hiatus from hearings was for decision-writing violated Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 3-99, which mandates continuous trial and efficient case management without such prolonged breaks. The Court rejected his defense, noting that trial hours are precisely for hearings, and decision-writing should be done outside those hours or during gaps in the trial calendar.
However, the Court exonerated him on the charges concerning bail and the premature trial. His explanations showed that in most bail-related cases, warrants were unserved or bonds had been posted, negating gross negligence. The trial before arraignment was a clerical error promptly rectified. For the proven violations—gross neglect of duty for the delays and violation of Administrative Circular No. 3-99—the Court imposed a fine of Twenty-Two Thousand Pesos (P22,000.00), with a stern warning.