Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-07-1664)
Facts:
Office of the Court Administrator v. Romulo G. Carteciano, A.M. No. MTJ-07-1664 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 05-8-244-MTC), February 18, 2008, Supreme Court Third Division, Chico-Nazario, J., writing for the Court.The administrative matter began with a letter dated November 4, 2003 from Judge Katherine A. Go, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Los Baños, Laguna, notifying the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that during a physical inventory she discovered that records of cases remained in the possession of retired Presiding Judge Romulo G. Carteciano, who had compulsorily retired on August 29, 2000. Judge Go also reported that Judge Carteciano had a practice of returning records piecemeal with draft decisions, sometimes on cases long submitted for decision.
Acting on Judge Go’s report, the OCA directed her to order Judge Carteciano to return the records. After inaction, the Court (by Resolution dated September 28, 2005) directed Judge Carteciano to explain within ten days why disciplinary action should not be taken and to return the records; it likewise directed Judge Go to inventory and report discrepancies between prior semestral dockets. Judge Carteciano responded (letter dated November 25, 2005) denying possession of certain criminal and civil case records, explaining that he had taken machine copies and some records home to work on decisions because the court lacked a computer, and citing health problems (visual impairment, hypertension, prostate illness, suspected renal cyst).
Subsequent inventories and reports by Judge Go (January–April 2006) revealed an initial discrepancy of 187 civil cases; after exhaustive checking, many of those files were found to have been disposed of either by Judge Carteciano, by his immediate successor Judge Amy Melba S. Belulia, or by Judge Go herself, and ultimately the court reported that all formerly “missing” files were accounted for. Nevertheless, records showed that Civil Cases No. 1459 and No. 1460 had no action after an April 8, 1992 hearing until Judge Carteciano’s retirement in 2000. The OCA, after investigation, found Judge Carteciano guilty of gross inefficiency, grave misconduct and delay in disposition and recommended a P40,000 fine (to be deducted from retirement benefits).
The Supreme Court (Third Division) reviewed the OCA report and related records by way of an administrative matter (the instant A.M. docket). The Court agreed that disciplinary action was warranted but reduced the penalty; it found...(Subscriber-Only)
Issues:
- Whether respondent Judge Romulo G. Carteciano is administratively liable for undue delay in disposing Civil Cases No. 1459 and No. 1460 and for keeping court records after his retirement.
- If liable, what penalty is appropriate considering mitigating circumstances (health, prior service, number of delayed cases) and ...(Subscriber-Only)
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)