Title
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-Branch 20, Manila
Case
A.M. No. 00-1-48-RTC
Decision Date
Oct 12, 2000
Judge Quijano fined P10,000 for undue delay in resolving 16 civil cases, violating the 90-day reglementary period; insufficient explanation offered.
Font Size:

Case Digest (A.M. No. 00-1-48-RTC)

Facts:

  1. Judicial Audit Conducted: On 22 November 1999, a Judicial Audit Team from the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted an audit of cases in RTC-Manila, Branch 20, presided over by Judge Virgilio D. Quijano.
  2. Findings of the Audit: The audit revealed that Judge Quijano failed to resolve eight (8) civil cases within the 90-day reglementary period. These cases included:
    • Civil Case No. 95-73415 (Unlawful Detainer) – submitted for decision on 7 January 1997.
    • Civil Case No. 94-70306 (Replevin and Damages) – submitted for resolution on 21 August 1998.
    • Civil Case No. 89-51404 (Declaration of Nullity of OCT's) – submitted for resolution on 25 September 1998.
    • Civil Case No. 93-68481 (Damages) – submitted for resolution on 17 May 1999.
    • Civil Case No. 93-66416 (Damages) – submitted for decision on 20 May 1999.
    • Civil Case No. 98-89167 (Delivery of Personal Property) – submitted for resolution on 9 June 1999.
    • Civil Case No. 98-90244 (Sum of Money) – submitted for resolution on 28 July 1999.
    • Civil Case No. 98-87354 (Replevin and Damages) – submitted for resolution on 10 August 1999.
  3. Failure to Act on Other Cases: The audit also revealed that Judge Quijano failed to act on eight (8) other civil cases for a considerable length of time.
  4. Supreme Court Resolution: On 8 March 2000, the Supreme Court required Judge Quijano to explain his failure to resolve the cases within the prescribed period and ordered the retention of P20,000.00 from his retirement benefits to answer for any administrative liability.
  5. Judge Quijano’s Explanation: On 5 May 2000, Judge Quijano submitted a two-page explanation, claiming that any delays were not intentional but due to inadvertence or oversight.

Issue:

  • (Unlock)

Ruling:

  • (Unlock)

Ratio:

  1. Constitutional and Legal Mandate: The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before lower courts must be decided or resolved within three (3) months from the date of submission. Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct also requires judges to dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within the periods fixed by law.
  2. Gross Inefficiency: Failure to decide cases within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency, which is a ground for administrative sanction. Judges are repeatedly reminded of this duty, and delays are not excusable.
  3. Insufficient Explanation: Judge Quijano’s explanation that the delays were due to inadvertence or oversight was deemed unsatisfactory. He failed to provide valid reasons for the delays and did not submit supporting documents for some cases allegedly resolved within the reglementary period.
  4. Judicial Responsibility: Judges play a crucial role in the administration of justice and must ensure the prompt disposition of cases. They are duty-bound to act vigilantly and conscientiously in fulfilling their responsibilities.
  5. Remedy for Heavy Caseloads: Judges burdened by heavy caseloads may request additional time from the Supreme Court to resolve cases, especially when complex legal issues are involved.


Jur is an AI-powered legal research platform in the Philippines for case digests, summaries, and jurisprudence. AI-generated content may contain inaccuracies; please verify independently.