AM 04 5 118 MTCc; (July, 2004) (Digest)
A.M. No. 04-5-118-MTCC July 29, 2004
RE: COMPLIANCE OF JUDGE MAXWEL S. ROSETE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC) SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA
FACTS
Judge Maxwel S. Rosete requested a transfer/designation as an acting judge in Metro Manila, supporting his plea by stating he had “only a handful of cases pending for trial… numbering to a little more than one hundred.” The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) discovered that, contrary to this representation, official records showed Judge Rosete had 326 pending cases in his regular sala (MTCC, Santiago City) and 212 in another court he was acting for (MTC, Cordon, Isabela) as of the relevant period. The Chief Justice denied his request and directed him to show cause why he should not be disciplined for apparent misrepresentation.
In compliance, Judge Rosete submitted a docket inventory showing a reduced caseload. The OCA initially surmised he might have been referring only to cases set for trial, not his total inventory, and thus may not have committed misrepresentation. However, upon closer scrutiny, the Court found that even the number of cases pending at the trial stage alone significantly exceeded his claim.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Rosete is administratively liable for his statements regarding his caseload in his request for transfer.
RULING
Yes, Judge Rosete is liable for dishonesty and lack of candor. The Court rejected the OCA’s initial benign interpretation. It held that at the time of his request, Judge Rosete’s total pending caseload was 538 cases across two courts. Even considering only cases at the trial stage, the figure (214) was more than double the “little more than one hundred” he reported. The statement was a deliberate misrepresentation made to deceive the Court into granting his transfer, which was effectively sought as a promotion. This act demonstrated a lack of the candor, fairness, and good faith required of every member of the bar and, more stringently, of the judiciary. Dishonesty, especially when committed against the Court itself, is anathema to judicial office and undermines the integrity of the judicial system. Consequently, the Court fined Judge Rosete Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for his lack of candor and dishonesty. He was also directed to show cause regarding delays in case disposition and to submit an updated, detailed docket inventory.