A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC - Judicial Audit Report

Case Summary (A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC)

Facts and Results of the Judicial Audit

The audit identified extensive case delays and instances where cases remained unacted upon for a considerable length of time. The Court’s resolution specifically enumerated sets of cases that had been “submitted for resolution” on various dates without corresponding action, and sets of cases considered “unacted upon” despite the passage of time. The audit findings were supported by the OCA’s review and later memoranda, which assessed the explanations offered by the judges against the Court’s standards for speedy disposition.

Court Directives After the Audit

Pursuant to the Court’s resolution dated 23 June 1998 and the OCA’s recommendations, the Court issued directives requiring judges to explain delay and lack of action on identified cases. The Court ordered Judge Serio A. Plan to explain delays in the specified civil cases submitted for resolution on listed dates. It also required Judge Wilfredo P. Ambrosio to explain delays in a large number of criminal and civil cases submitted for decision or resolution. Separately, Judge Fe Albano Madrid was required to explain the delay in Civil Case No. 0105 and to account for other civil cases unacted upon for a prolonged period. Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr. was likewise directed to explain delays in particular criminal and civil cases submitted for decision, and to explain why other cases had remained unacted upon. Judge Efren A. Lamorena faced similar directives for both criminal and civil cases, covering delays in submission for decision as well as lengthy inaction on certain cases. Judge Ruben R. Plata was directed to explain delays in both criminal and civil cases under his docket.

Judges’ Compliances and the OCA’s Assessment

Several judges submitted their respective compliances. In the OCA’s memorandum dated 11 May 1999, the OCA reported, first, that Judge Fe Albano Madrid offered no explanation for the delay in resolving Civil Case No. 0105 and for the other unacted cases, aside from the stated status of the cases. The OCA then evaluated the asserted reasons. For Civil Case No. 0105, the OCA noted that the case had long been dismissed on February 7, 1984, and suggested that what might have been involved was Spc. Proc. No. 0105, where a motion for reconsideration was pending. The OCA further stated that although the petitioner submitted a supplemental offer of documentary evidence on October 10, 1997, it was allegedly inadvertently missed, and that the motion was resolved only on February 10, 1998. As to the remaining cases, the OCA attributed some delay to plaintiffs’ inaction, such as failure to pursue service by publication, delayed compliance with evidentiary requirements, suspension of proceedings, and failure to file appeal memoranda or answer, depending on the case.

For Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., the OCA reported that he likewise did not offer specific explanations for the delays. Instead, his compliance consisted mainly of case status reports, including decisions, dismissals, archives, dismissals without prejudice, and other docket dispositions, as of various dates in 1998. For Judge Efren A. Lamorena, the OCA recorded that the judge invoked serious health problems, including vision impairment from cataract disease and later a stroke, and also cited difficult working conditions, such as a small and crowded office without airconditioning, trials conducted in corridors, and long daily commutes. The OCA further noted that although Judge Lamorena manifested that fewer cases remained to be decided and attributed delay to Super Typhoon Iliang and later Loleng, he did not furnish copies of his decisions.

For Judge Sergio A. Plan, the OCA reported that in his letter dated August 27, 1998, the judge explained certain delays largely through parties’ inaction and court actions such as archiving cases due to failure to serve summons or failure of a plaintiff to submit required exhibits, and the subsequent rendering of decisions once exhibits were submitted.

With respect to Judge Wilfredo Ambrosio, the OCA advised that he failed to comply with the Court’s directive. The OCA further stated that Judge Ambrosio had resigned from the service upon filing his certificate of candidacy, although the resignation papers were still being processed for purposes of benefit payments.

Late Judge Lamorena and the OCA’s Humanitarian Treatment

Judge Efren A. Lamorena died while in service. The OCA did not recommend administrative sanction against him for “humanitarian reasons.” The Court agreed that, by like standards used in A.M. No. 97-9-283-RTC where Judge Francisco O. Villarta died during the pendency of the case, no administrative sanction would be imposed on Judge Lamorena. In the meantime, Judge Wilfredo Tumaliwan was designated as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 36 vice Judge Lamorena.

Administrative Sanction Recommendations

After evaluating the explanations and the case records, the OCA recommended specific disciplinary measures. It proposed that Judge Fe Albano Madrid be reprimanded for the delay in resolution of Sp. Proc. No. 0105. It recommended that Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr. be fined P5,000.00 for failure to amply justify delay in enumerated criminal and civil cases. It also recommended that Judge Sergio A. Plan be fined P5,000.00, deductible from retirement benefits, for delay in resolving specified civil cases.

Further, the OCA recommended that Judge Wilfredo Ambrosio be fined P10,000.00 for failure to decide the listed cases, and that the fine be deductible from retirement benefits. The OCA further recommended that Judge Ruben R. Plata be severely reprimanded for failing to act with dispatch on specified criminal and civil cases, even though he had been able to decide certain other cases. The OCA’s recommendations reflected the view that judicial delays were attributable to judicial inaction and inadequate observance of court directives, and that excuses offered for some delays were not sufficiently supported or were not entirely persuasive.

The Court’s Evaluation of Excuses and Applicable Standards

The Court adopted the OCA’s findings and recommendations. It emphasized that the lapses in the judges could be traced to failures to properly observe relevant Court circulars. The Court referred to Administrative Circular No. 1 dated 28 January 1988, which required effective docket control, including a physical inventory by presiding judges upon assumption of office and every semester thereafter, indicating cases pending trial, cases submitted for decision, and cases archived, with submission to the Supreme Court within the required period and initialing of rollos by the presiding judge and clerk of court.

The Court also cited the restatement of those docket-control requirements in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 of 29 June 1994. It further pointed to Circular No. 13 dated 1 July 1987, reiterated in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated 15 January 1999, which mandated guidelines aimed at ensuring speedy disposition—including prescribed session hours, punctuality requirements for judges, compliance by the clerk of court under the judge’s direct supervision with the calendar of cases, strict adherence to rules on postponements and adjournments, and the avoidance of needless delay.

The Court also stressed that, notwithstanding the acknowledged heavy caseloads and the plight of trial judges, judges remained obligated to dispose of court business promptly under Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which required prompt and seasonal disposition of pending cases and incidents. The Court held that judges could request extensions of time when facing genuine difficulty, and it reiterated that the excuses offered did not excuse noncompliance with the duty to act.

Disposition and Penalties Imposed

The Court disposed of the matter in accordance with the OCA’s recommendations. It reprimanded Judge Fe Albano Madrid, RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City for the delay in the resolution of Sp. Proc. No. 0105. It fined P5,000.00 Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., RTC, Branch 35, Santiago City for failure to amply justify delay in the enumerated criminal and civil cases.

The Court also fined P5,000.00 Judge Sergio A. Plan, MTC,

Case Syllabus (A.M. No. 98-3-119-RTC)

This case arose from a judicial audit and physical inventory of records conducted by a Judicial Audit Team in multiple trial courts in Santiago City, Cabarroguis, Ilagan, and several Municipal Trial Courts in Isabela.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) submitted recommendations in a memorandum dated 23 February 1998 to the Chief Justice, which the Court considered in a resolution dated 23 June 1998.
The Court ultimately imposed administrative sanctions on several judges for delays in disposition of cases, while declining to impose sanction on Judge Efren A. Lamorena due to humanitarian considerations.
The proceeding was resolved by an En Banc decision authored by VITUG, J. and concurred in by the members of the Court listed in the decision.

Courts and Judicial Officers Covered

The audit and records inventory involved the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Santiago City, Branches 21, 35 and 36, the RTC of Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31, the RTC of Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 17, the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Santiago City, Branches 1 and 2, and the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Cauayan and Echague, Isabela.
The directive to explain delays targeted Judge Serio A. Plan of MTC, Cauayan, Isabela, Judge Wilfredo P. Ambrosio of RTC, Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31, Judge Fe Albano Madrid of RTC, Santiago City, Branch 21, Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr. of RTC, Santiago City, Branch 35, Judge Efren A. Lamorena of RTC, Santiago City, Branch 36, and Judge Ruben R. Plata of MTCC, Santiago City.
Judge Lamorena later died while the case was pending, and the Court found humanitarian reasons not to impose sanction on him.
Judge Wilfredo Tumaliwan was designated as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 36 in place of Judge Lamorena.

Procedural Origin and Court Resolution

The Court acted on the audit findings and the OCA memorandum by issuing a resolution dated 23 June 1998 requiring judges to explain specified delays and instances of long inactivity of cases.
The Court required multiple judges to account not only for delays in resolution but also for cases that remained unacted upon for considerable periods.
After receiving the judges’ compliances and OCA evaluations, the Court adopted the OCA’s findings and recommendations and issued the final disposition.
The Court also required the parties to indicate within ten (10) days whether they would submit the case for resolution based on the reports on record, but the Court dispensed with that manifestation because of the parties’ non-compliance.

Audit Findings Triggering Action

The audit focused on patterns of delayed disposition and failure to resolve cases within reglementary periods.
The OCA used the audit to identify specific cases submitted for decision long before the audit and cases remaining unacted upon for prolonged durations.
The OCA characterized some delays as attributable primarily to the judges, while in other situations it attributed movement to the parties or to procedural developments.
The OCA’s later assessment in a memorandum dated 28 January 2000 added evaluation of whether judges’ explanations were adequate and whether case release and mailing timelines supported the audit conclusions.

Directed Explanation for Judge Plan

The Court required Judge Serio A. Plan to explain delays involving cases listed as submitted for resolution or for decision on specified dates.
The cases listed for Judge Plan included CV-1896, CV-1894, CV-1932, CV-1946, CV-2034, and CV-1706.
The Court also required Judge Plan to explain why certain cases had remained unacted upon for considerable time, as enumerated under civil matters and criminal matters in the resolution.
The OCA later reported that Judge Plan gave an explanation grounded on the alleged inaction or fault of parties rather than on judge-driven measures to advance resolution.

Directed Explanation for Judge Ambrosio

The Court required Judge Wilfredo P. Ambrosio to explain delays for multiple criminal and civil cases that were submitted for decision or resolution on particular dates.
The directive included both instances of delayed decision drafting and unacted-for long periods, reflecting a broad scope of alleged inaction.
The OCA reported that Judge Ambrosio failed to comply with the Court’s directive because he resigned from the service with his resignation papers still being processed for payment of benefits.
The OCA recommended a fine on Judge Ambrosio for failure to decide the listed cases and for willful disregard of the Court’s resolutions.

Directed Explanation for Judge Madrid

The Court required Judge Fe Albano Madrid to explain delay in the resolution of Civil Case No. 0105, and to explain long periods of inactivity for additional civil cases enumerated in the resolution.
In her compliance, Judge Madrid offered explanations primarily based on the status of the cases rather than an accountable explanation for the delay.
The OCA observed that Judge Madrid gave no explanation for the delay in the resolution of Civil Case No. 0105.
The OCA noted that Civil Case No. 0105 had allegedly been dismissed earlier, and it suggested that what might have been referred to was Spc. Proc. No. 0105, where a Motion for Reconsideration remained pending.
The OCA further found that the alleged mis-reception of the petitioner’s Supplemental Offer of Documentary Evidence caused a late resolution of the motion.

Directed Explanation for Judge Calimag

The Court required Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr. to explain delays for criminal cases submitted for decision on October 10, 1997 and civil cases submitted for decision on July 28, 1997, May 22, 1997, and February 19, 1997.
The Court also required him to explain why enumerated cases remained unacted upon for a considerable length of time.
In his compliance, Judge Calimag did not provide explanation for delay and instead gave the status of the listed cas