A.M. No. 06-7-414-RTC

Ruling

Accordingly, the counsel for petitioner presented documentary evidence to prove jurisdictional facts ([Exh.] A and series). Thereafter, he moved and was allowed to adduce further evidence before the Clerk of Court and at [sic] the presence of the Assistant Provincial Prosecutor who appeared in behalf of the State . However, during the course of the audit it was observed by the Team that almost all of the petitions are pro-forma and notarized by COC Saguyod as ex-officio notary public. There are even unsigned, unverified and not notarized petitions granted by the Court. Further, almost all of them have no hearings conducted that it will be improbable if not possible that the court orders be published in a newspaper of general circulation as required by the Rules of Court. The docketing of cases was not also in sequence as to its date of filing ( Annex A ). Moreover, there are eighty-six (86) petitions [where] the date of filing were simultaneous or ahead of the date of [the] alleged hearing/decision ( Annex B ) and fifty-eight (58) petitions [were] found to have either no [c]ourt action or no further action for a considerable length of time ( Annex C ). Also, nine (9) petitions have similar docket numbers and three (3) cases with the same docket number ( Annex D ) while one hundred seventy-nine (179) cases [sic] records were not presented to the Team ( Annex E ). Further, in the reconciliation of the Semestral Docket Inventory for the period July-December 2004 of Land Registration Cases, thirty-three (33) case records are unaccounted [for] x x x. The Team also observed that there is no Certificate of Arraignment attached to [the] criminal case records. Minutes of the Hearing have no summary of what transpired during the hearing of the case. Docket books for criminal and civil cases are [ sic ] not updated. [The] [d]ocket book for special proceedings cases merely indicated the title of the case and the date it was filed with [a] notation decided. There is no docket book shown for land registration cases. Anent Election Protest No. 001-04, the Court in its order dated 04 June 2004 directed the protestant to make an initial deposit of [P]500.00 per ballot box (61 ballot boxes) as compensation for the revisors within five (5) days from notice. There was no receipt attached to the records of the case. COC Saguyod explained that the receipt was with the protestant and that the same was not per official receipt and not deposited to [ sic ] the Fiduciary Account as the same will be paid to the revisors. He claimed that he will also render an accounting of the expenses incurred at the end of the hearing. Likewise noted are the payments made in SP Nos. 1032 and 1033, both undocketed petitions, [having] the same Official Receipts Numbers which when compared with the original receipts[,] referred to other cases and/or transactions x x x. [1] In view of its observation, the Audit Team recommended in its Memorandum dated 11 July 2005 [2] that Jud