Case Summary (A.M. No. 94-3-115-RTC)
Audit Findings
On March 8, 1994, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum detailing an audit of pending cases in the Regional Trial Court. The audit uncovered significant deficiencies in case management within Judge Romero’s court, revealing that a total of 455 cases were pending, with 69 criminal and 22 civil cases submitted for decision and 386 criminal and 68 civil cases pending trial. A critical issue identified was the improper use of the official docket book, with court personnel opting for a non-standard record book instead, leading to poor record-keeping practices and an inability to ascertain the status of pending cases.
Delay in Case Decisions
The audit report specifically highlighted delays in the resolution of cases, noting that many cases had exceeded the prescribed 90-day decision period. It was revealed that there had been no requests for extensions filed by Judge Romero, and the backlog included cases dating back to 1987. This prompted the Court to investigate the causes of this delay and the condition of the docketing system.
Court's Response and Actions
In response to the findings, on May 2, 1994, the Court en banc mandated Judge Arturo Romero to explain the delay in 91 undecided cases and also required the Branch Clerk to address the lack of systematic filing. The Court suspended Judge Romero's salary until all pending cases were resolved within a six-month deadline. Additionally, an assisting judge was designated to help manage the backlog.
Clerk’s Explanation and Further Evaluations
In her May 13, 1994, submission, Atty. Soresca attributed past filing issues to her recent appointment and outlined the court staff's preference for using regular record books over the official docket book. She committed to improving the filing system. Subsequently, the Court referred the matter to the Office of the Court Administrator for a more thorough evaluation and recommendation.
Continued Delays and Misrepresentation
On July 21, 1994, the Deputy Court Administrator reported that Judge Romero continued to have unresolved cases beyond the regulatory time frame and had submitted false monthly certificates indicating that all cases had been decided. In earlier proceedings, the Court had already sanctioned Judge Romero for similar inefficiencies.
Judge's Denial and Justifications
On August 11, 1994, Judge Romero denied the existence of 91 pending cases and provided a certification from Atty. Soresca indicating that only 73 cases were outstanding. He attributed his delays to health issues and other external factors, such as power outages, which he claimed impeded his court operations.
Court's Final Determination
Upon further verification by the Court Administrator, it was found that 76 of the previously unaddressed cas
...continue readingCase Syllabus (A.M. No. 94-3-115-RTC)
Case Background
- The case arises from a memorandum dated March 8, 1994, addressed to Chief Justice Andres R. Narvasa regarding an audit and physical inventory of cases at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 120, Kaloocan City.
- The audit was conducted by a team from the Office of the Court Administrator under guidelines approved by the Court en banc on February 26, 1992.
- The audit findings highlighted significant mismanagement of case records.
Audit Findings
- Total pending cases were reported as follows:
- Criminal Cases: 69 submitted for decision/resolution, 386 on trial/pending.
- Civil Cases: 22 submitted for decision/resolution, 68 on trial/pending.
- The total number of cases was 455 criminal and 90 civil.
- A lack of proper management was evident, with the official docket book not being used due to its size. Instead, a Record Book was employed, which resulted in inadequate documentation of case statuses.
- There was no systematic filing, leading to confusion between decided, archived, and pending cases.
- Many cases had exceeded the 90-day reglementary period for decision, some dating back to 1987 and 1988.
Court Resolution
- On May 2, 1994, the Court en banc directed:
- Judge Arturo Romero to explain the delays in deciding 91 cases beyond the 90-day period.
- The Branch Clerk of Court to expl