OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE HENRY B. AVELINO, RESPONDENT.

Office of the Court Administrator versus Judge Henry B. Avelino

The Case

This is an administrative matter against Judge Henry B. Avelino, presiding judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pontevedra-Panay, Capiz. It arose from a judicial audit conducted in his sala, which disclosed slow movement of cases: cases long submitted for decision but still undecided, pending motions and incidents left unresolved, and numerous cases dormant for a considerable length of time. The Office of the Court Administrator charged him with gross inefficiency. The case matters because it fixes the standard of judicial diligence: delay in deciding cases is a serious violation of the parties' constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases, and neither lack of equipment nor designation to other courts excuses it.

Procedural History

The Court Management Office of the Office of the Court Administrator conducted a judicial audit of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pontevedra-Panay, Capiz, presided by Judge Avelino, and submitted its audit report dated June 28, 2004. By Memorandum dated July 6, 2004, the Office of the Court Administrator directed Judge Avelino to explain the delays, to inform the Court whether certain cases had already been decided, to explain why pending motions and incidents had not been resolved, to explain why many cases had not been acted upon for a considerable length of time, and to investigate the loss of the records of Election Protest No. 10. Judge Avelino complied through a Memorandum dated August 2, 2004. The matter was then resolved by the Supreme Court itself as an administrative case, without passing through the Court of Appeals.

Facts

The audit report showed that several criminal and civil cases had been submitted for decision and remained undecided long after their due dates. Seven cases were not decided within the ninety-day reglementary period. Pending motions and incidents in ten cases were not resolved within the reglementary period. Seventeen criminal cases and five civil cases had no further action and had been pending for a considerable length of time. The records of Election Protest No. 10 could not be accounted for.

In his Memorandum dated August 2, 2004, Judge Avelino blamed the delay on lack of computers and resource materials. He also justified the slow progress of his cases by his designation as acting presiding judge in other first level courts and by his hearing of inhibited cases, which he claimed consumed most of his time. As to the lost records of Election Protest No. 10, he claimed that they had been brought home by former Presiding Judge Mariano M. Malicudio.

The Court found the delays indisputable. Criminal Case No. 1091, for grave oral defamation, was filed in February 1991 and submitted for decision in February 1996, yet remained unresolved at the time of the audit in 2004, a delay of eight years. Criminal Case No. 1432, for slight physical injuries, remained undecided for five years. Criminal Case No. 1652 was submitted for resolution in August 2001 but remained unresolved for three years, and the preliminary investigation in Criminal Case Nos. 1523 and 1524 was delayed for four years. The audit also showed a manageable caseload of seventy-four pending cases, two typewriters in the sala, and a computer and printer in the respondent's chambers.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Avelino is administratively liable for gross inefficiency for failing to decide cases and resolve pending motions and incidents within the reglementary periods.
• Whether or not lack of computers and resource materials excuses the delay in deciding cases.
• Whether or not his designation as acting presiding judge in other courts and his hearing of inhibited cases excuse the delay.
• Whether or not he is liable for the loss of the records of Election Protest No. 10.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure provides:

Within thirty (30) days from receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment.

This governs Criminal Case No. 1432, which remained undecided for five years, and the Court stressed that the Rule was enacted to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases falling within its coverage.

Section 5 of Rule 112 of the Revised Rules on Criminal Procedure provides:

Within ten (10) days after the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit his resolution of the case to the provincial or city prosecutor for appropriate action.

This governs Criminal Case No. 1652 and Criminal Case Nos. 1523 and 1524, whose resolutions of preliminary investigation were delayed for three and four years, respectively.

The Constitution mandates that all cases or matters filed before all lower courts shall be decided or resolved within three months from the date of submission thereof. The Court cited this period as the standard violated by the respondent's delays.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Judge Avelino failed to decide seven cases and to resolve pending incidents and motions in ten cases within the ninety-day reglementary period, and failed to act on twenty-two cases dormant for a considerable length of time. This failure reflects a lack of dedication to the office and constitutes gross inefficiency. Delay in the disposition and resolution of cases is a serious violation of the parties' constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their grievances in court, undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute. Decision-making is the primordial and most important duty of a member of the bench.

On the second issue, the Court held that lack of computer facilities and resource materials cannot vindicate a judge for failure to decide and resolve cases on time. A judge could cause the preparation of decisions by manual typewriter, and the sala had two typewriters and a manageable caseload. The explanations were unacceptable and at best flimsy.

On the third issue, the Court held that designation as acting presiding judge in other courts and hearing of inhibited cases cannot exonerate a judge from liability for delay, because he is not precluded from asking for an extension of the period within which to decide a case if necessary. The Court has always been sympathetic to such requests. Delay in resolving motions and incidents within the ninety-day period fixed by the Constitution and the law cannot be excused or condoned.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that no fault can be attributed to the respondent for the lost records of Election Protest No. 10, since they were lost even before his assumption of office.

Doctrine

A judge's failure to render decisions within the reglementary period and to resolve cases on time constitutes gross inefficiency, punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than ten thousand pesos but not exceeding twenty thousand pesos. Delay in the disposition and resolution of cases is a serious violation of the parties' constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases. Lack of computers and resource materials does not excuse delay, since decisions may be prepared by manual typewriter. Neither does designation to preside over another sala excuse delay, because the judge may ask for an extension of time to decide. Judges must act with dispatch in resolving pending incidents so as not to frustrate the satisfaction of a judgment.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Henry B. Avelino administratively liable for gross inefficiency and fined him twenty thousand pesos, payable within thirty days, and admonished him to be more diligent in the performance of his sworn duty as a dispenser of justice.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing: delay in deciding cases is gross inefficiency, and neither lack of computers nor designation to other courts excuses it. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of judges for delay and the constitutional right to a speedy disposition of cases.