Title
Delos Reyes vs. Cruz
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-08-2152
Decision Date
Jan 18, 2010
Judge Cruz fined for 3-year delay in decision; Clerk Gundran suspended for 6-month delay in transmitting records, both warned for neglect.
judge fine
clerk of court suspension
delay in case disposition

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-08-2152)

Factual Background

Delos Reyes alleged that on March 25, 2004, Judge Cruz issued an order giving the parties fifteen days to file their respective memoranda, after which the case would be deemed submitted for decision. The parties complied, and the case was deemed submitted for resolution on April 9, 2004. The decision, however, was rendered only on July 30, 2007, or more than three years after submission. Delos Reyes thus contended that Judge Cruz incurred administrative liability for delaying the disposition of LRC Case No. R-5740.

Delos Reyes also asserted that after she received the adverse decision, she filed a notice of appeal on September 6, 2007, and she paid the corresponding appeal and docket fees. She claimed that more than six months thereafter, Clerk of Court Gundran still failed to transmit the records to the appellate court, which she said violated Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court. The complaint was directed against both respondents for separate delays attributable to their respective functions.

Filing of the Administrative Complaint and Comments

The letter-complaint was dated March 13, 2008. On April 11, 2008, then Court Administrator Zenaida N. Elepano required Judge Cruz and Clerk of Court Gundran to file their respective comments. Both complied.

Judge Cruz did not deny the delay. Instead, he pleaded indulgence and claimed that he suffered multiple health issues beginning in the latter part of 2004. He narrated that in January 2005 he was diagnosed with diabetes; cataract surgery for his left eye was performed on November 3, 2005; cataract extraction for the right eye occurred on April 4, 2006; and he was hospitalized for heart complications on October 26-28, 2007. He also stated that the delay was partly due to heavy pressure of work.

Clerk of Court Gundran denied remissness. He stated that in October 2007, he instructed the clerk-in-charge to complete the records and to prepare the transmittal letter. He claimed that the clerk-in-charge encountered difficulty in completing the records. He said he signed the transmittal letter on February 28, 2008, only to discover that Judge Cruz had not yet issued an order giving due course to the appeal. He further stated that the records were ultimately transmitted on March 28, 2008, which the clerk said coincided with the issuance of the order giving due course to the appeal by Judge Cruz. He also asserted that the heavy court docket and the numerous reports requiring attention prevented him from personally verifying whether the records had been completed and transmitted on time, and he denied any deliberate intent to delay.

Report and Recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator

In its Report and Recommendation dated October 13, 2008, the Office of the Court Administrator treated the matters separately. It stated that there were “two delays”: first, delay in deciding the case; and second, delay in transmitting the record. It found the delay in deciding the case attributable solely to Judge Cruz. While it did not condone the delay, it considered Judge Cruz’s physical condition, which was said to be supported by medical certificates and hospital records. It also noted that he availed of the Health and Welfare Plan of the Supreme Court.

With respect to Clerk of Court Gundran, the Office of the Court Administrator recommended a different treatment. It emphasized that the Branch Clerk’s duty was to verify the completeness of the records transmitted to the appellate court within thirty (30) days after perfection of the appeal, and it held that he could not shift the blame to subordinate staff without showing due diligence. It concluded that had he followed up his verbal instruction, he would not have incurred the delay. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended dismissal of the charge against Judge Cruz “with warning,” but recommended that Clerk of Court Gundran be suspended for one (1) month and one (1) day for simple neglect of duty.

The Court’s Assessment of Judge Cruz’s Undue Delay

The Court found both respondents remiss, but its evaluation of the delay differed from the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommended penalty for Judge Cruz. The Court anchored its analysis on Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution, which required that cases filed after the effectivity of the Constitution be decided within twenty-four months for the Supreme Court, twelve months for lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts, with lower courts given a period of ninety (90) days from submission for decision. The Court treated the applicable period for a trial court as ninety days.

The Court held it was undisputed that LRC Case No. R-5740 was submitted for decision on April 9, 2004 and that the decision was rendered only on July 30, 2007. This placed the decision more than three years beyond the ninety-day reglementary period. The Court rejected Judge Cruz’s justifications. It found that Judge Cruz claimed indisposition only towards the end of 2004, while the case had been submitted in April 2004. The Court noted there was no showing that he was constantly ill during the entire period between submission and promulgation. It likewise observed that cataract surgery for both eyes did not necessarily entail prolonged confinement, and Judge Cruz himself stated that he was admitted to the hospital only from October 26 to 28, 2007, which occurred long after the eventual decision date.

Even assuming that illness impaired performance, the Court ruled that Judge Cruz could have requested an extension of time to decide. The Court emphasized that the absence of any request for extension undermined the excuse. It cited its earlier ruling involving Judge Ubiadas, which held that illness could not justify failure to decide within the constitutionally prescribed period when the judge could have requested additional time but did not. The Court further stressed that undue delay amounts to a denial of justice and erodes public confidence in the judiciary. It also cited the New Code of Judicial Conduct, Canon 6, Section 5, which required judges to perform duties and deliver reserved decisions efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. The Court treated heavy caseload pressure as similarly insufficient to excuse delay, absent a request for extension of the reglementary period.

Accordingly, the Court ruled that Judge Cruz incurred administrative liability for undue delay in rendering a decision.

Penalty for Judge Cruz and Reminders on Judicial Promptness

For the penalty, the Court applied Rule 140, Section 11 of the Rules of Court, which classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious charge punishable by either (a) suspension without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. The Court noted that the delay in this case exceeded three years and found a fine of P11,000.00 appropriate.

The Court also issued a stern reminder that delay deprives litigants of the constitutional right to speedy disposition and tarnishes the judiciary’s image. It warned that procrastination in rendering decisions invites suspicion and erodes confidence in the courts.

The Court’s Assessment of Clerk of Court Gundran’s Failure to Transmit Records

The Court found Clerk of Court Gundran guilty of simple neglect of duty for failure to timely transmit the records of LRC Case No. R-5740. It relied on Section 10, Rule 41 of the Rules of Court, which provides that within thirty (30) days after perfection of all appeals, the clerk of court must verify correctness and completeness of the records, take measures to complete any incompleteness, and transmit the records to the appellate court. The rule further requires that if efforts to complete the records fail, the clerk must indicate in the transmittal letter the exhibits or transcripts not included, the reasons for non-transmittal, and the steps taken or that could be taken to have them available.

The Court held that the duty to verify completeness rested with Clerk of Court Gundran. It found that he relegated the task to another employee without a justifiable reason. The Court also rejected his defense that the clerk-in-charge encountered difficulty. It held that the rule expressly required measures to complete records, and that Clerk of Court Gundran’s comment did not show any steps taken to complete the records when difficulties arose. The Court further reasoned that difficulty in completion did not justify non-transmittal; when records could not be completed, the clerk should have followed the rule’s requirement to indicate missing exhibits or transcripts and the reasons therefor, as well as steps taken.

The Court also stressed that the records were ultimately transmitted only on March 28, 2008, more than

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms