REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT AND PHYSICAL INVENTORY OF CASES IN THE METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT OF MANILA, BRANCH 2.

De Guzman versus Office of the Court Administrator

The Case

This is an administrative matter arising from a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases in the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2. It is the Supreme Court, acting through its Office of the Court Administrator, against Judge Rolando de Guzman, the presiding judge, and against the branch clerk of court, Rosario Concepcion de Guzman, for their failure to submit required monthly reports and semestral docket inventories and for the mismanagement of court records. The case matters because it is the Court's own statement of what a judge and a clerk owe the judiciary in the management of their docket, and of the administrative consequences when they fall short.

Procedural History

The matter began as an administrative proceeding within the Supreme Court itself, triggered by an audit conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator. The audit was ordered because the branch had repeatedly failed to submit its monthly reports of cases for the whole of 1999 and its semestral docket inventory ending June 1999. On the basis of the audit team's findings, the Supreme Court issued a resolution in May 2000 directing the judge and the clerk of court to explain their failures, to decide and resolve the cases identified, to sign the unsigned orders, to act on cases left unacted upon, to observe the rules on archiving, and to submit the required reports. The matter was thereafter resolved by the Court en banc in a per curiam decision.

Facts

Judge Rolando de Guzman presided over Branch 2 of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila. He failed to submit his court's monthly reports of cases from January to December 1999, and he failed to submit the semestral docket inventory ending June 1999. Because of these repeated failures, the Office of the Court Administrator issued a memorandum in February 1999 directing that the salaries of the judge and of the branch clerk of court be withheld.

In January 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator organized an audit team to conduct a judicial audit and physical inventory of pending cases, including those submitted for decision or resolution, and to look into the delay in the required reports. The audit team found that the court's case records were mismanaged and that there was no effective records management procedure. Civil cases were mixed with criminal cases. Disposed or decided cases were in the same bundle as pending cases. Pending cases were mingled with cases to be archived. Cases were clogging the docket because proper archiving procedures were not observed. At the time of the audit, the caseload of the court was 3,410 cases, of which 2,872 were criminal and 538 were civil.

The audit team also reported that the docket books were not properly maintained and updated, that the docket book for criminal cases was not the prescribed book, and that the record book contained only the number, title, nature, filing date, and termination date of each case, with other pertinent data not recorded at all. Orders made in open court, when reduced to writing, remained unsigned by the respondent. Warrants of arrest had been issued but no action had been taken on them. The audit summarized the cases by status, showing cases for promulgation, cases submitted for decision, cases submitted for resolution, cases on trial, cases for pre-trial, cases with matters for compliance, cases for arraignment, cases unacted upon after the lapse of considerable time, and cases with warrants or summons, among others.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge de Guzman may be held administratively liable for his failure to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not Judge de Guzman may be held administratively liable for his failure to sign the orders of dismissal he rendered in open court.
• Whether or not Judge de Guzman may be held administratively liable for his failure to submit the monthly reports of cases and the semestral docket inventory.
• Whether or not the branch clerk of court may be held administratively liable for the mismanagement of court records and the failure to maintain and update the docket books.

Applicable Provisions

Administrative Circular No. 7-92, dated October 12, 1992, governs the archiving of cases, and the audit found that cases clogged the docket because its procedures were not observed:

Administrative Circular No. 7-92 dated October 12, 1992.

Administrative Circular No. 7-A-93, dated June 21, 1993, sets out the guidelines in the archiving of cases, and the Court directed the judge to act on the cases not acted upon since filing in accordance with it:

Guidelines in the Archiving of Cases.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the judge liable for his failure to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period. The audit had identified numerous criminal and civil cases submitted for decision or resolution that remained undecided, and the Court directed him to explain why no administrative sanction should be imposed. His failure to decide within the mandatory period was a violation of his sworn duty to dispense justice promptly.

On the second issue, the Court held him liable for his failure to sign the orders of dismissal he had rendered in open court. The audit found that orders made in open court, when reduced to writing, remained unsigned by the respondent, and the Court directed him to sign them with dispatch.

On the third issue, the Court held him liable for his failure to submit the monthly reports of cases and the semestral docket inventory. The Court directed him to explain why he refused to sign the monthly report of cases and semestral docket inventory submitted to the Statistical Reports Division, and to submit these reports regularly and duly signed.

On the fourth issue, the Court held the branch clerk of court liable for the mismanagement of court records. The Court directed her to devise a systematic and orderly management of court records, to regularly and religiously update the entries of the docket books using the prescribed docket books, and warned that a similar infraction in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Doctrine

A judge must decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period, and failure to do so is a violation of the sworn duty to dispense justice promptly. A judge must sign the orders he renders in open court when they are reduced to writing. A judge must submit the monthly reports of cases and the semestral docket inventory duly signed, and his refusal to do so is an administrative infraction. The branch clerk of court must devise a systematic and orderly management of court records and must regularly and religiously update the entries of the docket books using the prescribed docket books. Cases must be archived in accordance with Administrative Circular No. 7-92 and Administrative Circular No. 7-A-93, and the failure to observe proper archiving procedures clogs the docket.

Disposition

The Court held Judge de Guzman and Branch Clerk of Court Rosario Concepcion de Guzman administratively liable and directed them to comply with the audit directives, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future would be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that a judge's failure to decide cases within the reglementary period, to sign orders rendered in open court, and to submit the required monthly reports and semestral docket inventory is an administrative infraction, and the branch clerk of court's failure to maintain and update the docket books is likewise an administrative infraction. Examiners like to use this case to test the administrative responsibilities of judges and clerks of court in docket and records management.