G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-07-1664; February 18, 2008
RE: Administrative Matter No. 05-8-244-MTC (Records of Cases Which Remained in the Custody of Retired Judge Romulo G. Carteciano, Municipal Trial Court, Los Baños, Laguna)

FACTS

This administrative matter originated from a letter by Judge Katherine A. Go, the presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Los Baños, Laguna. She reported that during a physical inventory in 2003, she discovered that numerous case records remained in the possession of her predecessor, Judge Romulo G. Carteciano, who had compulsorily retired on August 29, 2000. Despite directives from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) and Judge Go’s own order for their return, Judge Carteciano failed to fully comply for an extended period. He returned records piecemeal, some as late as March 2006, often with draft decisions attached for the incumbent judge to sign. An inventory revealed significant discrepancies, initially showing 187 unaccounted civil cases and 114 unresolved cases not included in official reports.

ISSUE

Whether retired Judge Romulo G. Carteciano is administratively liable for his failure to return official case records to the court upon his retirement and for undue delay in the disposition of the cases involved.

RULING

Yes, Judge Carteciano is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of undue delay in rendering decisions and for improperly keeping court records. The legal logic is grounded on a judge’s non-negotiable duty to decide cases promptly and to ensure the proper custody of court records. Judge Carteciano’s removal of case records from the court premises violated Section 14, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court, which prohibits taking records without a court order. His retention of these records for nearly six years post-retirement constituted gross inefficiency and neglect of duty, severely impeding the administration of justice in his former court. The Court emphasized that proper court management is the judge’s direct responsibility, and his actions demonstrated a failure to discharge this duty. His proffered excuses, including health issues and his desire to work on cases using his home computer, were deemed insufficient to justify the violation. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits.