January 2005 - Philippine Supreme Court Decisions/Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Jurisprudence
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1869 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR v. JUDGE LETICIA QUERUBIN ULIBARRI
FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. NO. RTJ-04-1869 : January 31, 2005]
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE LETICIA QUERUBIN ULIBARRI, Respondent.
R E S O L U T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
This administrative matter treats of the report on the judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted from September 1 to 5, 2003, at Branch 168 of the Pasig City Regional Trial Court.
The audit team's report disclosed that at the time of the audit, Branch 168, presided by respondent Judge Leticia Querubin Ulibarri, had a caseload of 390 cases, consisting of 231 criminal cases and 159 civil cases. Only 30 cases were submitted for decision, but 261 of them had remained undecided beyond the 90-day period, while the remaining 4 cases2 had to be decided soon to avoid breaching said reglementary period. In addition, there were 39 cases3 in which no further action had been taken despite the lapse of a considerable time, and 10 cases4 were with pending motions.
The audit team also reported that the Clerk of Court, Atty. Peter Paul A. Matabang, submitted the semestral docket inventory late and failed to properly supervise the clerks in charge of updating entries in the criminal and civil docket books of the court.5 It likewise appeared that there were orders issued for the forfeiture of the bonds in 5 criminal cases,6 but there was no record on steps taken thereafter.
Conformably with the report, the Office of the Court Administrator issued on October 29, 2003, a memorandum order to Judge Ulibarri, Atty. Matabang, Ms. Seninia* Y. Santos, in-charge of the docket books for criminal cases, and Ms. Crisanta C. Tiuseco, who maintained the docket books for civil cases. The OCA ordered Judge Ulibarri: (1) to explain why she failed to timely decide the 26 cases, (2) to decide with dispatch the 4 other cases that had been submitted for decision, (3) to resolve said cases within 60 days from notice of the memorandum order, (4) to resolve with dispatch the pending motions in 10 cases, and (5) to submit copies of her decisions and resolutions to the Court Management Office, OCA, within 10 days after their promulgation. In addition, the OCA ordered Judge Ulibarri to take appropriate action on the 39 cases that remained unacted upon for a considerable length of time.7 ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ
Further, the OCA issued also the following orders:
II. Atty. Peter Paul A. Matabang, Branch Clerk of Court, Regional Trial Court, Branch 168, Pasig City [was] DIRECTED to:
(a) APPRISE the Presiding Judge from time to time of the cases/motions submitted for decision/resolution and those cases that require immediate action;
(b) REGULARLY SUPERVISE the updating of the entries in the criminal and docket books with a WARNING that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely;
(c) EXPLAIN, within ten (10) days from receipt, the delay in the submission of the semestral docket inventory of criminal cases and the non submission of the semestral docket inventory of civil cases for the first semester of 2003; andlibrary
(d) INFORM this Court within fifteen (15) days from receipt whether [or] not the judgment on the bond in Criminal Cases Nos. 112566, 116231, 5808-D, 119554, and 122680 had been duly executed and submit copies of the order and writ of execution and report of satisfaction of judgment.
III. Ms. [Seninia] Santos (Clerk in-charge of criminal cases) and Ms. Crisanta Tiuseco (Clerk in-Charge of civil cases) [were] DIRECTED to UPDATE the entries in the respective docket books assigned to them and SUBMIT COMPLIANCE therewith within sixty (60) days from notice hereof, with WARNING that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely.8
On November 28, 2003, the OCA received the explanations9 of Judge Ulibarri and the separate compliance letters10 of Atty. Matabang, Ms. Santos, and Ms. Tiuseco. Atty. Matabang likewise submitted his report, where he stated that the judgment on the bonds in the four criminal cases stated above have not yet been executed because the bonding companies have not yet received the orders for the forfeiture of bonds.
On March 12, 2004, while the OCA was evaluating this case, Judge Ulibarri reached age 70 and retired compulsorily.11
On May 25, 2004, the OCA found Judge Ulibarri liable for gross inefficiency. In its memorandum to this Court, the OCA reported that Judge Ulibarri managed to decide only 6 cases12 and resolved only 4 pending incidents.13 She did not dispose of the 4 civil cases14 that the OCA had directed her to decide with dispatch. Instead she allowed those 4 cases to go beyond the 90-day period. She failed to resolve 9 of the 10 pending motions,15 and neglected the 39 cases that have not been acted upon for a considerable time. For her gross inefficiency, the OCA recommended that the Court impose on Judge Ulibarri a fine of P15,000, to be deducted from her retirement benefits.
In the same memorandum, the OCA also recommended that Atty. Matabang report if the bonding companies in Criminal Cases Nos. 112566, 116231, 5808-D, 119554, and 122680 had received and complied with the orders forfeiting the bonds, and to explain why he failed to submit the monthly report of cases for February and March 2004.
Ms. Santos and Ms. Tiuseco both sufficiently explained their failure to update the docket books and adequately complied with the OCA's directives.
On August 30, 2004, a regular administrative complaint was filed against Judge Ulibarri for gross inefficiency. Meantime, Atty. Matabang was ordered anew to submit the report and explanation mentioned above.ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ
In answer to the administrative charge against her, Judge Ulibarri wrote the OCA on October 18, 2004, requesting that no penalty be imposed on her. She reiterated that she had valid reasons for failing to timely decide the 26 reported cases, and alleged that she had accomplished before her retirement all that the OCA had required of her. The delay, according to Judge Ulibarri, was explainable. First, the former presiding judge left her a heavy caseload. Second, upon her assumption to office, she first devoted her time to disposing of the court's backlog and to hearing cases that had been heard by the pairing judge only occasionally. Third, majority of the proceedings for most of the 26 cases she failed to timely decide were conducted by the former judge or the pairing judge. By the time those cases were submitted to her for resolution, the records of those cases had become voluminous and it became difficult to decide the cases with dispatch. And fourth, the added responsibilities attendant to the designation of her court as a family court in January 2003 left her overwhelmed and struggling with deadlines, especially since neither she nor her staff received additional training to cope with the added responsibilities.16
We find Judge Ulibarri's explanations far from satisfactory.
As repeatedly held by this Court, the existence of a heavy caseload or the assignment of additional functions do not make a judge less liable for delay.17 If her caseload prevented her from disposing of cases within the reglementary period, all she had to do was to inform this Court of the reasons for the delay and ask for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of her cases.18 The Court, cognizant of the caseload of judges and mindful of the difficulty encountered by them in the seasonable disposition of cases, remains sympathetic to their requests for extension of time. Here, however, Judge Ulibarri made no such request. Her failure to decide cases and resolve motions in time therefore merits administrative sanction.19
We cannot overemphasize the Court's policy on prompt resolution of disputes. A judge's failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of the right of the litigants to speedy disposition of their cases.20 If public confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved, judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence. There is no excuse for delay nor negligence in the performance of judicial functions.
Under Section 11 (B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in the rendition of judgments, classified as a less serious offense, is punishable by suspension from office without salary and other bene fits for not less than 1 month but not more than 3 months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.21 Considering the number of cases and motions Judge Ulibarri failed to decide in time, her 40 years of service in government, and the absence of any showing that she was a habitual offender, we find judicious22 the penalty of P15,000 as recommended by OCA.
The Court notes that Atty. Matabang did not fail to submit the semestral docket inventory of civil cases for the first semester of 2003. Nor did he fail to submit the monthly report of cases for the months of February and March 2004 as reported by the OCA. In his first compliance letter, submitted on November 28, 2003, Atty. Matabang attached the receiving copy of the semestral docket inventory for criminal cases. The receiving stamp of the Statistics Division, OCA, on the face of that semestral docket inventory to which was attached the semestral docket inventory of civil cases'shows clearly that both semestral docket inventories were submitted on October 16, 2003. Likewise, in his explanation, submitted on October 18, 2004, in compliance with the Resolution of this Court dated August 30, 2004, Atty. Matabang attached certified true copies of the first pages of the monthly reports for the said months. The stamp mark "Received, Aug. 27, 2004" of the Statistics Division, OCA, clearly proves that Atty. Matabang submitted his monthly reports on that date.
However, for failing to submit on time the required semestral docket inventory and monthly reports, Atty. Matabang should be faulted. His explanation, that the court has a heavy caseload, is not a justifiable excuse.23 As clerk of court, his office involves the performance of delicate administrative duties essential to the prompt and proper administration of justice.24 Delay in the submission of reports calls for appropriate sanctions.ςηαñrοblεš �νιr†υαl �lαω �lιbrαrÿ
Finally, on the matter of the forfeiture of bonds, there is still a need to require Atty. Matabang to make further reports on the progress of the forfeiture proceedings of bonds in Criminal Cases Nos. 112566, 116231, 5808-D, and 119554. He states that in Criminal Case No. 112566, a writ of execution on the full amount of the bond had been issued but has not yet been satisfied. In Criminal Case No. 116231, it still does not appear that the February 2, 2004, order forfeiting the bond has been received. Hence, he wrote the Postmaster of the Quezon City Post Office asking the latter to inform him of the date the concerned bonding company received the order of forfeiture. He is still waiting for a reply. In Criminal Case No. 5808-D, the Pasig City RTC is still waiting for the bonding company to comply with the order dated July 7, 2003, forfeiting the bond, although the company received the order as early as August 7, 2003. In Criminal Case No. 119554, he sent a letter to the Postmaster of Makati City asking the latter to inform him of the date when the bonding company received the order of forfeiture dated April 4, 2002. Finally, as regards Criminal Case No. 122680, the order of arrest has been lifted by the Pasig City RTC on September 22, 2003. Thus, as to the bond in this case, no further report is needed now.
FOREGOING PREMISES CONSIDERED, retired Judge Leticia Querubin Ulibarri is held administratively liable for undue delay in the rendition of decisions or orders. As recommended by the OCA, she is hereby ordered to PAY A FINE of P15,000.00, to be deducted from her retirement benefits. Atty. Peter Paul A. Matabang, Clerk of Court of Branch 168 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasig City, is REPRIMANDED for his failure to submit on time the semestral docket inventory and monthly report of cases. He is also ordered to promptly report to the Office of the Court Administrator within 10 days from notice hereof the status of the proceedings for the forfeiture of the bonds in Criminal Cases Nos. 112566, 116231, 5808-D, and 119554, with a stern warning that failure to do so on his part will be treated more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., (Chairman), Ynares-Santiago, Carpio, and Azcuna, JJ., concur.
Endnotes:
1 Rollo, pp. 1-3. Criminal Cases Nos. 1787-D,123919 to 123920, 5769-D to 5770-D, 121716, 6206-D, and 114798, and Civil Cases Nos. 65914, 65962, 67264, 67218, 10101-SP and 10052-SP, 2371, 68903, 68587, LRC-R-6104, 68815, R-6120, 68483, 67886, 69173, 68793, 65015, and 68985.
2 Id. at 3. Civil Cases Nos. 66818, 6030, 6055, and 6156.
3 Id. at 5-7. Criminal Cases Nos. 110623, 125159, 125426 to 28, 125362, 125190, 125308, 125634, 119554, 119327, 109300, 109868, 7873-D, 99005, 125299, 125102, 112502, and 119078; and Civil Cases Nos. N-11479, R-6042, N-11488, SP-11303, SCA-2334, 6117, 6119, 6093, 6048, 6158, 6083, 6143, 6208, 6210, 6175, 6131, 6151, 6025, 6050, 6104, 6103, and 6095.
4 Id. at 4. Criminal Cases Nos. 110395, 12485-D, 125866, 125756, and 125757, and Civil Cases Nos. 65848, 6081, 67426, 68412, and 66433.
5 Id. at 13-29.
6 Id. at 11. Criminal Cases Nos. 116231, 119554, 112566, 5808-D, and 122680.
* "Sennia" in some parts of the records.
7 Id. at 32-38.
8 Id. at 38-39.
9 Id. at 41-43.
10 Id. at 63-64, 137-138.
11 Id. at 11.
12 Id. at 8. Criminal Cases Nos. 1787-D, 121716, 114798, 5769-D & 5770-D and Civil Case No. 68587.
13 Civil Cases Nos. 68815, 68793, 65015, and 68985.
14 Id. at 8. Civil Cases Nos. 66818, 6030, 6055 and 6156.
15 Id. at 9. Criminal Cases Nos. 110395, 12485-D and 125756-57 and Civil Cases Nos. 65848, 6081, 67246, 68412 and 66433.
16 Id. at 42.
17 Gonzalez-Decano v. Siapno, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279, 1 March 2001, 353 SCRA 269, 278.
18 Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Español, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1872 (Formerly A.M. No. 04-6-352-RTC), 18 October 2004, p. 2.
19 Petallar v. Pullos, A.M. No. MTJ-03-1484, 15 January 2004, 419 SCRA 434, 438.
20 Philippine Constitution, Article III, Section 16.
21 Supra, note 18 at 14.
22 See Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Barroso, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1874 (Formerly A.M. No. 03-8-473-RTC), 18 October 2004, pp. 12-13.
23 Casanova, Jr. v. Cajayon, A.M. No. P-02-1595, 3 April 2003, 400 SCRA 472, 476.
24 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-Brs. 1, 2 & 3, Mandaue City, A.M. No. 02-8-188-MTCC, 17 July 2003, 406 SCRA 285, 298.