A.M. No. MTJ-12-1817 [Formerly A.M. No. 09-2-30-MTCC] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. ROSABELLA M. TORMIS, PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES [MTCC], BRANCH 4, CEBU CITY AND MR. REYNALDO S. TEVES, BRANCH CLERK OF COURT, SAME COURT.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Co

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that: The instant matter be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter against Hon. Rosabella M. Tormis, Presiding Judge, MTCC, Branch 4, Cebu City and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves , Branch Clerk of Court, same court; Judge Rosabella M. Tormis be found GUILTY OF (a) undue delay in rendering a decision or order; (b) violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars resulting in the mismanagement of the court; and (c) gross ignorance of the law for ordering the arrest of the accused in Criminal Case Nos. 126542R to 49-R entitled People vs. Jasmin L. Librando without the accused having been informed yet of the charge against her and accordingly be FINED in the amounts of Eighty Thousand Pesos (P80,000.00), Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), respectively, with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely; Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves be found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty and be FINED in the amount equivalent to his two (2) months salary with the warning that a repetition of the same or similar act will be dealt with more severely; and Judge Rosabella M. Tormis and Mr. Reynaldo S. Teves be DIRECTED to hereceforth (a) submit accurate monthly reports of cases and docket inventory reports; (b) strictly monitor the movement of all pending cases that are active, being tried and until decided, dismissed or archived, as may be warranted; (c) improve the system of serving court processes including the return or proof of service; and (d) maintain a general docket book pursuant to Section 8, Rule 136 of the Rules of Court. [26] The Courts Ruling The present administrative case refers to not just one but several acts allegedly committed by Judge Tormis and Mr. Teves said to be violative of the Rules of Court and Supreme Court rules, regulations and directives. Judge Tormis is hereby accused of committing the following irregularities: (1) undue delay in the disposition of cases; (2) mismanagement of the court and case records; (3) non-promulgation of decisions; and (4) issuing a warrant of arrest without first apprising the accused of the charge against him. For his part, Mr. Teves is here charged with (1) mismanagement of case records; and (2) failure to set case for promulgation. Undue Delay in the Disposition of Cases Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandates lower court judges to decide a case within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days. The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disr