Case Digest: REPORT on the JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED in the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 136, MAKATI CITY

REPORT on the JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED in the REGIONAL TRIAL COURT BRANCH 136, MAKATI CITY

442 SCRA 414 (2004)

A judge is duty bound to render decision without undue delay.

By directive of the Court Administrator, a judicial audit was conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136 of Makati City which was formerly presided by retired Judge Jose R. Bautista. Audit and inventory revealed that the pending cases resolved by said judge were resolved in July 2000 prior to the judge’s retirement which was decided for a palpable length of delay.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the amount of P20,000.00 be withheld from his retirement benefits for his offense as adjudicator.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Bautista is guilty of undue delay in the rendering of decision or orders

HELD:

As could be observed, although Judge Bautista resolved the subject cases before he retired last July 2000, the length of the delay in the resolution thereof could not be ignored. It would appear that he only endeavored to resolve the pending incidents and decide the cases in anticipation of his retirement as almost all of the cases were solved in the months of June and July.

The Court is not unaware of the awesome burden heaped on the shoulder of every judge. Very often, a judge must cope with a heavy caseload along with still other task that attach to his position. The grave responsibility notwithstanding, a judge is not excused form being remiss in all that is incumbent upon him. From the moment he takes his oath, he is beholden to the public and is expected to live up to the exacting standards of an exalted office.

The Court has constantly reminded judges

of the need to decide cases with dispatch because any delay in the disposition of cases can easily undermine the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. x x x Regrettably, respondent judge has been neglectful in the above aspect. x x x.‖

Under Rule 140 of Section 2 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision is considered less serious charge sanctioned by either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for 1 nor more than 3 months or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

Indeed, almost all the pending incidents and cases submitted for decision which were awaiting resolution/decision within 90 days were acted upon by Judge Bautista long after said period expired or only on July 2000, immediately before he retired on July 27, 2000, entailing years of delay with respect to some incidents, and even a delay of more than 6 years with respect to one case submitted for decision, as reflected in the above-reproduced tabulation prepared by the OCA.