A.M. No. RTJ-13-2342 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR VS. JUDGE FERNANDO G. FUENTES III REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, TAGBILARAN CITY [A.M. NO. RTJ-12-2318 [FORMERLY: OCA IPI NO. 11-3755-RTJ] ] PAULINO BUTAL, SR. COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FERNANDO G. FUENTES III REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 49, T

Ruling

accordingly OCA IPI No. 11-3755-RTJ was re-docketed as A.M. No. RTJ-12-2318 and consolidated with A.M. No. 11-8-152-RTC. In its report [8] dated 19 November 2012, the OCA recommended that Judge Fuentes III be: a) found guilty of gross inefficiency for his failure to decide 70 cases within the reglementary period, which includes Civil Case No. 7028 subject of A.M. No. RTJ-12-2318, and resolve 27 incidents submitted for resolution; b) fined in the amount of P50,000.00 to be deducted from his salaries; and c) sternly warned that the commission of a similar offense will be dealt with more severely. The OCA stated that: x x x The duty of a judge is not only confined to hearing and trying cases. It is equally important to decide the same within the period mandated by law. Judge Fuentes III who, at the time of the judicial audit, is the Executive Judge, should have been the role model of a diligent, efficient, and hardworking judge. But on the contrary, he was the opposite thereof. If for some reason he could not dispose of cases within the reglementary period, all he had to do was to ask for a reasonable extension of time. x x x [9] Under the 1987 Constitution, trial judges are mandated to decide and resolve cases within 90 days from submission for decision or resolution. Corollary to this constitutional mandate, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. The mandate to promptly dispose of cases or matters also applies to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending before the magistrate. Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate. [10] Judge Fuentes III concedes that there is no valid justification for the delay in resolving the cases pending in his court. Indeed, his frequent travels to his residence in Ozamis City, which led to travel fatigue and poor health, will not absolve him from liability. We have always reminded judges that the Court is not unmindful of the circumstances that may delay the disposition of the cases assigned to them. Thus, the Court remains sympathetic to seasonably filed requests for extension of time to decide cases. Unfortunately, no such requests were made by Judge Fuentes III until the judicial audit was conducted by the OCA and a directive was issued to him by the Court. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Javellana , [11] the Court held that a judge cannot choose his deadline for deciding cases pending before him. Without an extension granted by the Court, the failure to decide even a single case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction. If a judge is unable to comply with the period for deciding cases or matters, he can, for