Case Digest (A.M. No. 07-1-05-RTC)
Case Digest (A.M. No. 07-1-05-RTC)
Facts:
Re: Request of Judge Salvador M. Ibarreta, Jr., Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Davao City, A.M. No. 07-1-05-RTC, August 23, 2010, the Supreme Court Third Division, Carpio Morales, J., writing for the Court.The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) initiated proceedings after Judge Salvador M. Ibarreta, Jr. (respondent), Presiding Judge of Branch 8, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Davao City, repeatedly sought extensions to render decisions in several civil cases and failed to submit copies of the decisions within the extended reglementary periods. By letter dated October 26, 2006, respondent requested a 90-day extension to resolve four civil cases (Civil Case Nos. 30,410-04; 30,998-05; 7286-03; and 8278-05) on the ground of a “heavy caseload.” He later submitted successive letter-requests (December 22, 2006; January 2, 2007; April 23, 2007; June 8, 2007; and July 4, 2007) seeking additional 90‑day extensions to decide overlapping lists of cases, reiterating heavy caseload and, at one point, sick leave since January 15, 2007.
The Court acted on some of those requests. By Resolution dated February 12, 2007, the Court granted the October 26, 2006 request. On July 11, 2007, after receiving a copy of respondent’s decision in Civil Case No. 30,998-05 (promulgated January 2, 2007) and treating that as “partial compliance,” the Court granted a 90-day extension for the remaining three cases (Nos. 30,410-04; 7286-03; and 8278-05), reckoned from their respective due dates, and reminded respondent to indicate the number of prior requests in future petitions. By Resolution of September 26, 2007, the Court again noted and granted respondent’s April 23, June 8 and July 4, 2007 requests and directed him to furnish copies of each decision in Civil Case Nos. 30,410-04; 7286-03; and 8278-05 within ten days from rendition.
Despite these grants, the OCA reported by memorandum dated January 27, 2010 that, more than two years after the extended deadlines, respondent had not furnished copies of the three outstanding decisions, and therefore recommended disciplining him for failure to render decisions in at least three cases within the reglementary period, initially proposing a fine of P15,000 and ordering him to decide the cases within 15 days. The OCA memorandum also noted the specific extended due dates (until October 28, 2007 for No. 30,410-04 and until November 3, 2007 for Nos. 7286-03 and 8278-05).
The Court considered the constitutional and regulatory mandate to decide within the reglementary period (citing Administrative Circular No. 13-87 and the New Code of Judicial Conduct, as well as Rule 140 of the Rules of Court) and referenced respondent’s earlier disciplinary disposition in Buenaflor v. Judge Ibaretta, Jr., 431 Phil. 249 (2002). The Court increased the penalty recommended by the OCA and, by Resolution dated August 23, 2010, imposed a fine and directed respondent to render and submit the outstanding decisions within a specified period.
Issues:
- Did Judge Salvador M. Ibarreta, Jr. fail to render decisions within the reglementary period as extended?
- If so, is discipline warranted and what penalty is appropriate?
- Can heavy caseload and the judge’s sick leave excuse the delay in rendering decisions?
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)