A.M. No. RTJ-09-2171 - Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 6, Tacloban City

A judicial audit was conducted in the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Tacloban City on November 28 and 29, 2008.
The audit was prompted by concerns over the prolonged pendency of cases and irregularities in administrative procedures.
Judge Santos T. Gil served as the Presiding Judge until his retirement on August 20, 2008, during which time he was in charge of the court's workload.
Prior to his retirement, on May 14, 2008, Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno designated Judge Alphinor C. Serrano as the Assisting Judge to relieve Judge Gil and facilitate the disposition of newly filed cases.

Observations and Irregularities Identified by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

Sixteen (16) criminal cases were not acted upon from the time of filing.
Seventy-six (76) criminal and seven (7) civil cases were not given further action or set for hearing for a considerable period.

Thirty-four (34) criminal and four (4) civil cases were left undecided.
In addition, resolutions for pending incidents/motions in four (4) criminal and five (5) civil cases were not effected.

Five (5) criminal cases did not have promulgated decisions despite the lapse in time.

Several warrants of arrest were found improperly handled by the Process Server.
Some certificates of detention were allegedly signed by a court clerk (Atty. Edna V. Maceda) instead of by judicial authority.
There were deficiencies including missing entries (e.g., absence of stamp on the receipt of motions), typographical errors, incomplete records (for jointly tried cases), misnumbered docket entries, lack of proper pagination in case records, and the improper retention of evidence such as firearms, ammunition, and illegal drugs.

The judicial audit report was re-docketed as an administrative complaint against Judge Gil for gross incompetence, inefficiency, negligence, and dereliction of duty.
Specific recommendations included imposing a fine of Fifty Thousand Pesos (P50,000.00) against Judge Gil, to be deducted from his retirement or terminal leave benefits.
Detailed remedial measures were directed to Judge Serrano, such as:

Taking immediate and appropriate action on the identified criminal and civil cases within thirty (30) days from notice, with exact case numbers enumerated in the report.
Resolving pending incidents and motions, as well as rendering decisions on cases submitted for decision, with submission of copies of resolutions and decisions within ten (10) days of issuance.

Additional administrative directives were issued to Atty. Edna V. Maceda, the Branch Clerk of Court, including:

Keeping the presiding judge informed of case statuses.
Conducting an actual inventory and periodic updating of the court docket books.
Supervising the proofreading and accurate pagination of all records.
Ensuring that certificates of detention are no longer improperly issued by non-judicial personnel.
Actually endorsing evidence such as confiscated firearms, ammunitions, and drugs to the proper agency.
Maintaining proper log books for all incoming pleadings, documents, and warrants.

The audit findings highlight a pattern of judicial inefficiency on the part of Judge Gil, including instances where cases had been pending for as long as six to seven years.
The constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases was compromised, emphasizing that "justice delayed is justice denied."
Previous incidences of delay had already resulted in lighter sanctions (e.g., fines for earlier offenses), yet the repetition warranted a more substantial penalty.

Whether Judge Santos T. Gil’s prolonged delay in taking proper judicial action on numerous criminal and civil cases constitutes gross inefficiency and dereliction of duty.
Whether the failure to act on pending motions, resolve incidents, and promulgate decisions within the reglementary period infringes on litigants’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.
Whether the imposition of an administrative sanction, specifically a fine of P50,000.00, is appropriate given the extent of the judicial delays and the absence of mitigating factors such as approved requests for extension.
Whether the remedial measures and directives issued against Judge Alphinor C. Serrano and the court clerk are sufficient to ensure prompt and efficient handling of pending cases in the future.