G.R. No.: A.M. No. 97-9-278-RTC July 8, 1998
Case Parties: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City (Concerning Judge Gualberto P. Delgado, Judge Antonio R. Roque, Clerk of Court Raul Cesar C. Bajarias, HRMO Patrocinio V. Salazar, and Clerk of Court Eustacia N. Marfil)

FACTS

A judicial audit was conducted in the Regional Trial Court of Toledo City due to the retirement of two judges: Judge Gualberto P. Delgado of Branch 29 (optional retirement on January 10, 1997) and Judge Antonio R. Roque of Branch 59 (compulsory retirement on May 10, 1997). The audit revealed:
1. For Branch 29 (Judge Delgado): He left ten (10) undecided cases submitted for decision. His retirement application was processed and approved by the Court despite the absence of a required certification from the Branch Clerk of Court that he had no pending cases submitted for decision. Furthermore, the Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Raul Cesar C. Bajarias, failed to transmit the records of several appealed cases (Criminal Case Nos. 1861 and TCS-1961; Civil Case Nos. T-344 and T-406) to the proper appellate court for an unreasonable length of time despite court orders. He also failed to promptly issue a writ of execution in Criminal Case No. 1876 as ordered.
2. For Branch 59 (Judge Roque): He failed to decide eight (8) criminal cases and nine (9) civil cases within the reglementary period. Actions on nineteen (19) criminal and eleven (11) civil cases were delayed. Two (2) criminal and seven (7) civil cases were not acted upon from the time of filing or assignment. The audit also found that Clerk of Court Eustacia N. Marfil, who was acting for Branch 59, assigned new docket numbers to cases raffled to that branch instead of using the original numbers, causing difficulty in verifying case status.
The Court directed the concerned officers to explain. Atty. Bajarias claimed he had since transmitted the records and issued the writ. Mrs. Salazar (HRMO) explained that her office processed Judge Delgado’s application based on checklist compliance and that final verification of pending cases was under the Office of the Court Administrator (OCAD). Judge Roque explained his failure by stating he awaited parties’ memoranda, lacked a local law library, and could no longer decide the cases by the time of the audit near his retirement. Clerk of Court Marfil explained the docket number practice was a control measure for her multiple roles and was done in good faith, later corrected.

ISSUE

Whether the concerned judges and court personnel should be held administratively liable for the deficiencies found during the judicial audit.

RULING

The Court ruled as follows:
1. Atty. Raul Cesar C. Bajarias (Branch Clerk of Court, Branch 29): Found GUILTY of neglect of duty. He was FINED Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) for his unreasonable delay in transmitting appealed case records and issuing a writ of execution, which constitutes a violation of his duty to ensure the prompt dispatch of court business. His claim of subsequent compliance did not exonerate him.
2. Mrs. Patrocinio V. Salazar (HRMO): Her explanation was NOTED. The Court found that the primary responsibility for ensuring the submission of the certification regarding pending cases rested with the OCAD, which recommended approval of Judge Delgado’s retirement.
3. Judge Antonio R. Roque (Former Presiding Judge, Branch 59): Found GUILTY of failure to decide cases within the reglementary period. His excuses (awaiting memoranda, lack of library) were unacceptable. Judges are mandated to decide cases promptly and must request extensions if needed. He was FINED Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00), to be deducted from the amount withheld from his retirement benefits.
4. Clerk of Court Eustacia N. Marfil: Found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty for assigning new docket numbers, a practice not in conformity with standard procedure which hampered audit verification. Considering her heavy workload and immediate correction of the practice, she was ADMONISHED to be more careful in the performance of her duties.
The Court emphasized the imperative duty of judges and court personnel to uphold public confidence in the judiciary through efficient and prompt service.