A.M. No. 13-8-185-RTC. October 17, 2018
RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 24, CEBU CITY

FACTS

A judicial audit was conducted in September 2012 at RTC Branch 24, Cebu City, due to the optional retirement of Presiding Judge Olegario B. Sarmiento, Jr., who had commenced terminal leave. The audit revealed a significant backlog. Out of 519 total pending cases, 42 cases were submitted for decision, with 21 already beyond the 90-day reglementary period. Furthermore, 46 cases had pending incidents or motions for resolution, 6 of which were also beyond the 90-day period. The audit team noted that Judge Sarmiento never requested any extension of time to decide or resolve these cases. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended treating the matter as an administrative case against Judge Sarmiento and imposing a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00). In his defense, Judge Sarmiento cited his nearly 20 years of service, his past performance in reducing a heavy docket, and his claim that he returned post-retirement to draft decisions for the undecided cases to assist his successor.

ISSUE

Whether retired Judge Olegario B. Sarmiento, Jr. is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and orders.

RULING

Yes, Judge Sarmiento is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that failure to decide cases and resolve incidents within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting administrative sanction. This duty is mandated by Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and reinforced by the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to dispose of court business promptly. The Court stressed that delay in the administration of justice deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition, increases litigation costs, and undermines public faith in the judiciary. While the Court is sympathetic to heavy caseloads and considers requests for extensions of time, Judge Sarmiento failed to avail himself of this remedy by never seeking any extension for the numerous overdue cases and motions. His inaction left no reason for exoneration. However, in determining the penalty, the Court considered mitigating circumstances, including his two decades of service and his uncontroverted assistance in preparing draft decisions post-audit. Consequently, the Court found the OCA’s recommended fine of P50,000.00 excessive. Instead, Judge Sarmiento was found guilty of undue delay and fined the reduced amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits.