AM RTJ 01 1646; (March, 2003) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-01-1646. March 11, 2003.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, complainant, vs. JUDGE FRANCISCO C. JOVEN, respondent.
FACTS
A judicial audit of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 29, Bislig, Surigao del Sur, presided by respondent Judge Francisco C. Joven, revealed numerous administrative deficiencies. The audit found respondent failed to decide or resolve multiple criminal and civil cases within the reglementary period, failed to act on numerous pending incidents and cases for a considerable time, and did not archive cases in accordance with administrative circulars. Further infractions included failure to submit required monthly jail reports, granting a reduced bail improperly, dismissing cases on questionable grounds, and failing to conduct mandatory monthly jail visits, which coincided with a period when prisoners escaped.
In his explanation, respondent cited reasons for the delays, such as awaiting memoranda from parties or reports from local officials, and claimed to have subsequently acted on many cases post-audit. He also stated he conducted jail inspections informally due to the jail’s proximity to his residence but admitted failing to submit the required written reports.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Francisco C. Joven is administratively liable for the various infractions found during the judicial audit.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court emphasized that judges have a constitutional duty to dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within required periods. While the Court recognizes heavy caseloads and complex issues, it grants extensions upon meritorious application. Respondent offered no such request. His justifications for delay—such as passively awaiting memoranda or reports without proactive follow-up—are unacceptable, as they contribute to docket congestion and undermine public trust in the judiciary.
For failing to decide cases within the reglementary period, a less serious charge under Rule 140, respondent was held accountable. Considering his compulsory retirement in 2001, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Five Hundred Pesos (P10,500.00) to be deducted from his retirement benefits. This penalty serves to uphold the standards of judicial efficiency and responsibility.