A.M No. 05-8-539-RTC - Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Lapu-Lapu City

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit in the Regional Trial Court, Lapu-Lapu City, Branch 54 from April 4 to 8, 2005, in anticipation of the compulsory retirement of Presiding Judge Rumoldo R. Fernandez.
The audit was undertaken to assess the efficiency of the court’s docket management and the prompt resolution of cases under the judge’s supervision.
The audit revealed deficiencies in case disposition and administrative compliance that raised concerns about judicial efficiency.

There were 456 pending civil cases and 456 pending criminal cases, totaling 912 cases, with additional cases bringing the total caseload to 962.
Of this caseload, only 24 cases had been submitted for decision and another 24 cases had pending incidents for resolution.
Additionally, 112 cases were categorized as "dormant" due to inaction over an extended period.

Among the 24 cases submitted for decision, four cases were already beyond the reglementary period.
In 15 of the 24 cases with pending incidents, the resolution was overdue.
For nine cases, enforcement actions regarding the cancellation or forfeiture of bail bonds had not been effected as of the audit date.
The Semestral Docket Inventory for July to December 2004 was still being prepared, and the docket inventory for December 2004 to March 2005 remained unsubmitted.

On April 21, 2005, Senior Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida N. ElepaAo issued a memorandum directing Judge Fernandez to:

Submit written explanations for delays in deciding the four overdue cases and for delaying the resolution of pending incidents, and to finalize decisions and resolutions before his retirement on July 1, 2005.
Furnish the OCA with certified true copies of these decisions or orders within prescribed time frames (five days from rendition or issuance, and fifteen days for the dormant cases).
Ensure the enforcement of the cancellation or forfeiture of bail bonds in the noted criminal cases.

Similar directives were given to Branch Clerk of Court Atty. Denis L. Pacas regarding his failure to timely submit the semestral docket inventory and monthly reports, in contravention of established administrative circulars.
Judge Fernandez’s and Atty. Pacas’ Responses

In his Letter-Compliance dated May 20, 2005, Judge Fernandez reported on deciding the criminal cases, stated that writs of execution were issued for bail bond matters, and explained the status of the remaining civil cases and pending incidents.
In a subsequent letter dated May 23, 2005, Judge Fernandez provided updates on the transmission of the docket inventory and monthly reports, citing the heavy caseload and limited resources as contributory factors.
Similarly, Atty. Pacas, in his May 23, 2005 letter, attributed the delays to numerous pending cases, extensive administrative and supervisory duties, and his recent assumption of the position.

The OCA found the explanations submitted by both Judge Fernandez and Atty. Pacas unsatisfactory.
It recommended that:

Judge Fernandez be treated for gross inefficiency due to his failure to decide or resolve cases and incidents within the legally prescribed periods.
A fine be imposed on Judge Fernandez, and
Atty. Pacas be admonished for his administrative lapses and reminded of the importance of his role in the efficient administration of justice.

Judge Fernandez compulsorily retired on July 1, 2005.
After considering the explanations, the OCA reiterated that inefficiency in deciding cases undermines public confidence in the judiciary and must be met with appropriate sanctions.

Whether the failure of a judge to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the reglementary (constitutionally prescribed) period constitutes gross inefficiency.
Whether such inefficiency is grounds for imposing administrative sanctions.

Whether the explanations provided by Judge Fernandez and Atty. Pacas, citing heavy caseloads and limited resources, are sufficient to excuse their delays.
Whether the failure to request an extension of time, as provided under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, constitutes a breach of judicial and administrative obligations.

What degree of penalty is appropriate for a first infraction of this nature, taking into account the judge’s imminent retirement.
How to address the administrative lapses committed by both the judge and the clerk with regard to timeliness in case management and report submission.