A.M. No. RTJ-05-1924; October 13, 2010
RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE JUDGE DAMASO A. HERRERA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 24, BIÑAN, LAGUNA

FACTS

Judge Damaso A. Herrera, former Presiding Judge of RTC Branch 24, Biñan, Laguna, retired effective April 5, 2004. A report from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCAd) revealed that upon his retirement, 55 cases submitted for decision remained undecided before his sala. The list included numerous civil and criminal cases, many of which were already long overdue, with some due dates extending back to 1984. The report further indicated that the number of pending cases increased from 26 in December 2003 to 55 by March 2004, that Judge Herrera failed to request extensions of time to decide these cases, and that his branch failed to submit monthly reports of cases on time as required.
In his explanation, Judge Herrera cited several mitigating factors. He stated he had decided four of the listed cases prior to retirement and could not act on two others due to a Supreme Court Circular prohibiting work after a retirement date if no approval notice was received. He attributed the delays to an inherited heavy caseload of about 1,000 cases, voluminous records, missing transcripts of stenographic notes (TSNs), the lack of a regular Branch Clerk of Court, and health reasons. He claimed he had exerted earnest efforts and requested extensions, though the OCAd’s report noted a failure to do so formally.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Damaso A. Herrera is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and for failure to comply with reporting requirements.

RULING

Yes, Judge Herrera is administratively liable for gross inefficiency. The constitutional and statutory mandate for judges to decide cases within specified periods is categorical and mandatory. The Court found Judge Herrera’s explanations—heavy caseload, health issues, and lack of personnel—unconvincing and insufficient to exonerate him from liability. While these circumstances may explain the difficulty, they do not justify the failure to decide or to seek formal extensions of time from the Court. His inaction in requesting extensions demonstrated indifference to his duty. The Court treated the heavy inherited caseload only as a mitigating circumstance.
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious charge punishable by suspension or a fine of more than ₱10,000 but not exceeding ₱20,000. Considering the mitigating circumstance, the Court imposed a fine of ₱11,000.00, to be deducted from the ₱40,000 withheld from his retirement benefits. The Court accepted the explanation of Acting Clerk of Court Julian R. Orfiano, Jr. for the late reports but issued a warning for strict future compliance. The balance of the withheld retirement benefits was ordered released to Judge Herrera.