Sps. Jiji Erk, et al. vs. Artemio Ojale

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, and that respondent be fined in the amount of Php300,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits. [8] In addition, the OCA recommended that Valencia be directed to show cause why she should not be administratively charged for her failure to indicate the true number of cases submitted for decision in the court's Monthly Report of Cases from October 2003 to October 2019. [9] Ruling of the Court The Court adopts and approves the recommendation of the OCA to re-docket the case as a regular administrative matter, but orders respondent to pay a fine of Php100,000.00 instead of Php300,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits, and directs Valencia to show cause why she should not be administratively charged. Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution mandates lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters for decision or resolution within three (3) months from date of submission. Section 5 of Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides that judges should perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness. Similarly, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct states that a judge should promptly dispose of the court's business and decide cases within the required periods. Judges are to be held at a higher standard in the performance of their duties, and the failure to fulfill this duty would not only violate every litigant's constitutional right to the speedy disposition of cases, but will also hold the erring judge administratively liable for the offense. Under Section 9 (1), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge punishable by either suspension from office without salary or benefits, or a fine. [10] Based on the OCA's audit, respondent had a total of twenty-five (25) cases pending before his court, eighteen (18) of which were already submitted for decision, while seven (7) others had unresolved motions. The delay in the resolution of these cases ran for as long as fifteen (15) years at the time of the audit. Worse, three (3) of those cases remained unresolved for more than a decade. For these, respondent should have been administratively dealt with. This Court has consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, and non-observance of said rule is a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. [11] To emphasize, it was respondent's lack of transparency as to the true status of his case docket which prevented the OCA from immediately conducting an audit and allowed him to retire without answering for the pending matters in his court. Dishonesty is deemed a grave offense, punishable by the ultimate penalty of dismissal from the service with forfeiture of retirement benefits, except accrued leave credits, and