A.M. No. MTJ-01-1341 (Formerly A.M. No. 99-9-134-MeTC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE REINATO G. QUILALA AND BRANCH CLERK OF COURT ZENAIDA D. REYES-MACABEO, METC, BRANCH 26, MANILA.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the Court Administrator recommended that (1) Judge Quilala "be fined in the amount of P5,000.00 for failure to decide cases submitted for decision before him within the reglementary period, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely;" and that (2) Ms. Macabeo "be admonished for her failure to indicate in the Monthly Report of Cases she submitted to this Office, the list of cases submitted for decision, with a warning that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely." We agree with the findings and recommendation of the Court Administrator. The noble office of a judge is to render justice not only impartially, but expeditiously as well, [1] 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 disrepute." [2] Thus, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the period specified in Section 15 (1) (2), Article VIII of the Constitution, that is, three months from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum. This requirement of the fundamental law is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice for obviously, justice delayed is justice denied. Prompt disposition of the court's business is attained through proper and efficient court management. Rule 3.08, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct instructs that "(a) judge should diligently discharge administrative responsibilities, maintain professional competence in court management, and facilitate the performance of the administrative functions of other judges and court personnel." Respondent judge has been remiss in his duty and responsibility as court manager by failing to adopt a system of record management. Consequently, case records were misplaced, resulting in his failure to decide the subject cases within the reglementary period before he was promoted to the Regional Trial Court. That his personnel failed to inform him of the unresolved cases does not exculpate him from administrative sanction. Proper and efficient court management is the responsibility of the judge, and he is the one directly responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions. [3] He thus cannot take refuge behind the supposed mistakes or inefficiency of his clerk of court. [4] What we emphasized before bears repeating: "It is the duty of a judge to take note of the cases submitted for his decision or resolution and to see to it that the same are decided within the 90-day period fixed by law , and failure to resolve a case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency." [5] "A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or resolution and is expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may act on them promptly. [6] The public trust character of his office imposes upon him the highest degree of respon