A.M. No. RTJ-99-1434 - ARNULFO B. TAURO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANGEL V. COLET, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 8. D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, they have been consistently reminded that delay in the disposition of cases ordinarily constitutes gross inefficiency and, as such, is deemed inexcusable. [9] However, should the resolution of a case within the reglementary period prove to be unlikely, they may ask this Court for a reasonable extension of time to prepare a decision. [10] In the present case, respondent judge never asked for extension, for he forgot that the cases were pending. As respondent himself admits, the charge against him cannot be justified by the claims that transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) were not immediately transmitted to him, and that he totally forgot the cases after he was transferred to other stations. Judges are required to take down notes and to proceed in the preparation of decisions, even without the TSNs. The Court has held that the three-month reglementary period continues to run, with or without them. [11] Thus, their absence or the delay in their transcription cannot excuse respondent judge's failure to decide the cases within the prescribed period. Further, respondent was remiss in his duty to adopt a system of record management, as evidenced by the loss of the records of the cases. Worse, he did not even endeavor to locate the missing documents. In fact, he totally forgot about the pending cases, until he accidentally came across them. In this light, members of the bench are reminded that they are required to organize their courts so as to bolster the prompt and efficient dispatch of business. [12] In Office of the Court Administrator v. Villanueva , we ruled: "A judge xxx is expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may act on them promptly without undue delay. It is incumbent upon him to devise an efficient recording and filing system in his court so that no disorderliness can affect the flow of cases and their speedy disposition. x x x Proper and efficient court management is as much his responsibility. He is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions." [13] Accordingly, we adopt the recommendation of the OCA that respondent judge be fined P10,000. In Celino v. Abrogar , [14] the Court imposed the same fine to the respondent, who failed to decide a civil case within the three-month period. [15] WHEREFORE, Judge Angel V. Colet is found GUILTY of gross inefficiency and is hereby ordered to PAY a fine of ten thousand pesos (P10,000). He is WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar acts shall be dealt with more severely. Let a copy of this Decision be attached to his personal records. SO ORDERED.