A.M. No. 04-7-373-RTC, 04-7-374-RTC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC Branch 60, Barili, Cebu

A judicial audit was conducted in response to newspaper reports concerning the irregular handling of the murder case of Cedrick Devinadera, the self-confessed accessory in the killing of Alona Bacolod-Ecleo.
The investigation was prompted by Deputy Court Administrator (DCA) Christopher Lock’s recommendation and the imminent compulsory retirement of Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte.
The audit targeted RTC, Branch 60, Barili, Cebu, and focused on Judge Suerte’s compliance with Administrative Order No. 36-2004, which designated Judge CaAete as the assisting judge for all newly filed cases and cases where pre-trial had not been terminated as of March 3, 2004.

Failure to act on or take necessary actions in 170 cases that remained dormant for an extended period.
Handling and rendering decisions on specific civil and criminal cases (a total of 51 civil and 119 criminal cases) which he should have otherwise assigned to the assisting judge per the administrative order.
Acting in clear violation of AO No. 36-2004 by hearing cases filed after its effectivity, including the Devinadera case which was filed on March 29, 2004.

In several nullity and annulment cases, Judge Suerte failed to verify the veracity of petitioners’ addresses, thereby raising jurisdictional doubts.
He was found to have expedited the resolution of cases with undue haste, sometimes processing cases in record time (as with the Castro-Roa case) or issuing orders without proper notice and hearings (as in the Stockli special administration case).
The decision rendered in Civil Case No. CEB-BAR-250 was based on what appeared to be a fabricated transcript of stenographic notes, with multiple inconsistencies and irregularities surrounding its origin and authentication.

In Criminal Case No. CEB-BRL-1039 (People vs. Devinadera), Judge Suerte proceeded with the trial despite the existence of a pending similar case (Criminal Case No. CBU-62308) in RTC, Cebu City.
The procedures adopted in the Devinadera case were fraught with irregularities, including failure to have the accused identify his extra-judicial confession in open court and the absence of mandatory clarificatory questions to test the voluntariness and veracity of the confession.
In Criminal Case No. CEB-BRL-742 (People vs. Conag), he issued two orders of dismissal on the same ground with conflicting dates and inadequate factual basis.

Judge Rosabella M. Tormis was found to have inappropriately approved the bail applications in two criminal cases (CEB-BRL-783 and CEB-BRL-922) in violation of procedural requirements under Section 17, Rule 114 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure.
Clerk of Court Atty. Rhoda S. Paquero-Razonable was found negligent in managing case files and records, evidenced by disorderly filing systems, misplaced documents, and her unauthorized exercise of powers during ex-parte hearings in LRC Case No. 200.

In his sworn statement, Judge Suerte admitted to receiving the subject Administrative Order and acknowledged his decision to continue handling certain cases in a bid to expedite the disposition of cases involving detention prisoners.
He claimed that the random assignment of cases by the Clerk of Court contributed to his inadvertent receipt of cases meant for the assisting judge, although he later acknowledged the misinterpretation of the AO’s limitations.
His defense also highlighted the desire to support speedy resolution of cases, a rationale which did not excuse his clear breach of established procedural rules and administrative orders.

Whether Judge Ildefonso B. Suerte violated Administrative Order No. 36-2004 by continuing to handle all newly filed cases and those where pre-trial had not been terminated.

Determining the compliance with the directive that assigned such cases to Judge CaAete.
Assessing the implications of handling cases beyond his jurisdiction as defined by the AO.

Whether Judge Suerte’s handling of various cases—civil, criminal, and special proceedings—demonstrated judicial misconduct and a disregard for due process.

Evaluating his failure to act on 170 dormant cases and the subsequent prejudice caused to the parties involved.
Scrutinizing the accelerated resolution of cases, including decisions based on fabricated evidentiary documents such as transcripts of stenographic notes.

Whether the decisions rendered in the various cases (e.g., Devinadera, nullity of marriage cases, and special administration in the Stockli matter) were valid or tainted by procedural lapses and irregularities.

Examining the absence of due notice and proper hearing in the appointment of the special administrator.
Considering the conflicting orders of dismissal and the reliance on allegedly spurious evidence in judicial decisions.

Whether the actions of Judge Rosabella M. Tormis and Clerk of Court Atty. Rhoda S. Paquero-Razonable also constitute breaches of judicial and administrative protocols that contributed to the overall irregularities in the court’s functioning.