A.M. No. 96-5-169-RTC - Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Courts of Kidapawan

A judicial audit was conducted in the Regional Trial Courts (RTCs) of Kidapawan and Kabacan, North Cotabato, covering multiple branches.
Two separate reports were submitted: one covering several branches and another specifically for Kidapawan City, Branch 17.
Based on the audit findings, the Court issued a Resolution addressing significant delays and irregularities in the disposition of both criminal and civil cases.

The Resolution required Judge Rodolfo Serrano of RTC Kidapawan City, Branch 17 to explain the delays in the disposal of Criminal Cases Nos. 1644 and 2179 and Civil Case No. 0271.
The Branch Clerk of Court, Gary V. Vergara, was likewise ordered to comment regarding the reported withholding of the true status of Special Civil Action No. SCA-091.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that Judge Serrano was guilty of gross inefficiency for delaying the disposition of several criminal cases (e.g., Nos. 496, 726, 1890) and civil cases (e.g., Nos. 0246, 0824).
The OCA recommended imposing a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) on the judge while absolving the clerk from any administrative sanction.

In his letter of compliance, Judge Serrano explained that his branch was designated as a special court for heinous crimes pursuant to Administrative Order No. 104-96, which contributed to the delays, especially since some cases were inherited from former incumbents.
Branch Clerk Vergara also filed a letter-compliance, clarifying that he did not intentionally withhold the true status of the Special Civil Action No. SCA-091.
The clerk produced a copy of the decision and apologized for any inadvertent errors that might have led to misreporting of the case's status.

The judicial audit revealed that Judge Serrano had failed to decide and act on a long list of criminal and civil cases and incidents, details of which were enumerated extensively in the resolution.
Orders were issued directing the judge to explain, decide, or resolve numerous pending matters, including:

Cases pending decision despite the lapse of the mandatory period.
Cases where actions or settings in the court calendar remained unresolved.
Cases that were not promptly addressed from the time of assignment to his branch.

Specific directives were given for the judge to provide explanations for lapses and to furnish the court with copies of decisions, orders, or resolutions within prescribed periods.
Similarly, detailed instructions were given to Branch Clerk Vergara regarding reports and clarifications on additional cases where the disposition status was in question.

Judge Serrano was not only found guilty of gross inefficiency but was also directed to:

Decide certain civil cases within 20 days from receipt of notice.
Decide criminal and other civil cases with dispatch.
Explain, decide, or resolve extended lists of pending cases and incidents clearly enumerated in the resolution.

Branch Clerk Vergara was similarly mandated to explain delays in reporting certain cases, submit missing reports, and confirm whether decisions had been rendered in a set of enumerated cases.
The comprehensive directives encompassed both corrective actions and the requirement to furnish prompt copies of the outcomes to the Court through the Office of the Court Administrator.

Whether the delay in the disposition of the criminal and civil cases by Judge Serrano constituted a violation of judicial conduct, particularly in light of the required prompt administration of justice.
Whether the Branch Clerk's submission and explanation regarding the misreporting of Special Civil Action No. SCA-091 were sufficient in exonerating him from administrative sanctions.
The appropriate quantum of penalty for Judge Serrano, considering that his delay was not an isolated incident but compounded by previous offenses and a lack of candor.
How the extensive list of unresolved cases and various pending incidents affected the integrity and efficiency of the court’s operations.
The proper enforcement of administrative orders and judicial conduct rules to ensure that similar delays and inefficiencies do not recur in the future.