RE: JUDICIAL AUDIT REPORT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 17, KIDAPAWAN CITY JUDGE RODOLFO M. SERRANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 17, KIDAPAWAN CITY, NORTH COTAB…

Re: Judicial Audit Report Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Kidapawan City, Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano

The Case

This is an administrative matter concerning Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Kidapawan City, North Cotabato. It arose not from a complaint filed by a litigant but from a judicial audit and physical inventory of the cases in his sala, conducted near the date of his retirement on August 20, 2002. The audit revealed that a large number of cases submitted for decision and motions submitted for resolution remained undecided and unresolved. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's own statement of the rule that a judge's sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay is enforceable through administrative sanctions, and that illness, however serious, does not excuse a judge who fails to ask for an extension of time.

Procedural History

The judicial audit team conducted an initial audit and inventory of the cases in Branch 17 and found that Judge Serrano had failed to decide 150 cases and to resolve pending incidents or motions in 25 cases. A follow-up audit was conducted on July 10, 2002. In view of the audit report dated August 19, 2002, the Supreme Court directed Judge Serrano to explain why he failed to decide all cases and resolve all motions submitted to him, and withheld 100,000 pesos from his retirement benefits to answer for any administrative liability. Judge Rogelio R. Narisma, designated Assisting Judge of Branch 17, was directed to report on the status of certain cases and to take appropriate action on those not acted upon since filing.

Judge Serrano submitted his explanation, and Judge Narisma submitted a report dated October 18, 2002. The matters were referred to the Office of the Court Administrator, which on February 6, 2003 submitted a memorandum recommending that Judge Serrano be found administratively liable for delay and neglect of duty and fined 5,000 pesos, to be deducted from the withheld amount. In its resolution of February 26, 2003, the Court adopted the recommendation that Judge Narisma's report be considered sufficient compliance, except as to four cases, and found the recommendation against Judge Serrano well taken. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court in its decision of March 14, 2003.

Facts

Near his retirement on August 20, 2002, an audit and physical inventory of the cases in Judge Serrano's sala was made. The audit showed a total caseload of 453 cases, consisting of 310 criminal cases and 143 civil cases. Of these, 97 cases were submitted for decision, and additional cases were later found to have been submitted for decision and for resolution. In its initial audit, the team found that Judge Serrano had failed to decide 150 cases and to resolve pending incidents or motions in 25 cases.

In the follow-up audit of July 10, 2002, the team found that of the 150 cases submitted for decision, Judge Serrano had decided only 52, leaving 98 undecided, with pending incidents in about 14 cases. After his retirement, the number of undecided cases was reduced to 82 and the number of cases with pending incidents to 21. The audit team also found that several cases had not been acted upon since they were filed.

Judge Serrano explained that he developed cirrhosis of the liver in May 2001 and had been advised by his physician to rest for a month. He claimed that, as his retirement was approaching, he had asked the Office of the Court Administrator to exempt him from the regular raffle of cases and to relieve him from hearing heinous crime cases so that he could concentrate on cases submitted for decision, and that although his request was granted, the grant came only on June 5, 2002, less than three months before his retirement.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Serrano is administratively liable for delay in deciding cases and resolving motions submitted to him, despite his illness and the timing of the grant of his request for relief from the raffle of cases.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator should be imposed, considering his illness and heavy caseload as attenuating circumstances.

Applicable Provisions

The decision invokes the constitutional mandate that judges decide cases with deliberate dispatch, as restated in the ruling:

No less than the Constitution mandates judges to decide cases with deliberate dispatch.

This is the standard against which Judge Serrano's failure to decide and resolve the cases was measured.

The decision also invokes the Code of Judicial Conduct:

Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of the Court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

This supplies the specific ethical duty breached by the delay.

Finally, the decision quotes its own earlier ruling in the Bumanglag case:

Failure to decide cases within the periods fixed by law constitutes a neglect of duty, which warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions.

This is the rule that makes the delay administratively punishable.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that Judge Serrano is administratively liable for delay. He did not dispute the findings of the audit team that he failed to decide several criminal and civil cases submitted to him for decision or resolution. The Court found his excuse unsatisfactory. It acknowledged that it has viewed with understanding requests for extension made by judges, and that should a judge find himself unable to decide cases within the 90-day period, he can ask for an extension of time, and such requests are generally granted. Judge Serrano could have asked for an extension but did not. The Court quoted its ruling in the Bumanglag case that serious illness may justify the inability of a judge to perform his official duties, but that when hindered by a grave malignancy, it was incumbent upon the judge to request the Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, for additional time to decide the cases. For failing to do so, he must suffer the consequences of his omission. The Court likewise quoted the Quizon case, stressing that the public's faith and confidence in the judicial system is at stake in cases involving delays, and that procrastination in rendering decisions not only causes great injustice to the parties but also invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge. It concluded that Judge Serrano's illness, though it adversely affected the performance of his duties, should not be an excuse, as he could have sought an extension.

On the second issue, the Court noted that the Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of 5,000 pesos. It reviewed its prior rulings where serious illness and heavy caseload, or failing health and personal tragedies, were considered attenuating circumstances that reduced the fines imposed. Finding the recommendation well taken, the Court imposed the fine of 5,000 pesos.

Doctrine

A judge has the sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay. Failure to decide cases within the periods fixed by law constitutes neglect of duty and warrants administrative sanctions. When a judge is hindered by serious illness or other grave circumstance, it is incumbent upon him to request the Supreme Court, through the Office of the Court Administrator, for additional time to decide the cases he could not seasonably act upon. Failure to ask for an extension forecloses exoneration. Serious illness and a heavy caseload may be considered attenuating circumstances in fixing the penalty, but they do not erase the liability. These rules rest on the constitutional mandate that judges decide cases with deliberate dispatch and on Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which enjoins judges to dispose of the Court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

Disposition

Judge Rodolfo M. Serrano was adjudged administratively liable for delay in deciding the subject cases and fined 5,000 pesos, to be deducted from the retirement benefits due him.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that serious illness does not excuse a judge who fails to decide within the reglementary period, because he could and should have asked the Supreme Court for an extension of time. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of judges for delay and neglect of duty, and the treatment of illness and heavy caseload as mitigating rather than exculpating circumstances.