RE: COMPLIANCE OF JUDGE MAXWEL S. ROSETE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC) SANTIAGO CITY, ISABELA.

Re: Compliance of Judge Maxwel S. Rosete

The Case

This is an administrative matter concerning Judge Maxwel S. Rosete, Presiding Judge of Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Santiago City, Isabela, and Acting Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Cordon, Isabela. The case arose from his letter to the Office of the Court Administrator requesting reassignment to a vacant sala in Metro Manila, in which he represented that he had only a handful of cases pending for trial. The Supreme Court treats the matter as one of judicial discipline, and it matters for two reasons: it fixes the standard of candor and honesty owed by a magistrate to the Court, and it restates the duty of judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and without delay.

Procedural History

The matter began not as a complaint but as an administrative request. On 16 September 2002, Judge Rosete wrote the Deputy Court Administrator asking to be designated as acting judge to any vacant sala within Metro Manila. The Deputy Court Administrator sought the comments of the Executive Judge of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Santiago City and the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Santiago City; both offered no objection. In a memorandum dated 20 January 2003, the Deputy Court Administrator recommended denial of the request, and the Chief Justice denied it on 24 February 2003, at the same time directing Judge Rosete to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against him for misrepresentation, and to submit a docket inventory. Judge Rosete complied on 28 April 2003. The Office of the Court Administrator found no apparent misrepresentation, but the Supreme Court disagreed. The case reached the Court as an administrative matter, resolved by the Court en banc in a resolution promulgated on 29 July 2004.

Facts

In his letter of 16 September 2002, Judge Rosete asked to be designated as acting judge to any vacant sala within Metro Manila, stating in support that he had only a handful of cases pending for trial before his sala, numbering to a little more than one hundred. The records of the Office of the Court Administrator, however, showed that as of October 2002 he had 326 pending cases in Branch 2 of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Santiago City and 212 pending cases in the Municipal Trial Court of Cordon, Isabela. The same records showed that there were no vacant courts in the National Capital Region at the time, that there was a scarcity of judges in the Province of Isabela, and that an assignment to the National Capital Region is considered a promotion for which his record showed no exemplary performance.

The Chief Justice denied the request and required Judge Rosete to show cause and to submit a list of pending cases. In his compliance of 28 April 2003, the Office of the Court Administrator counted 254 pending cases in Branch 2 and 105 in the Municipal Trial Court of Cordon. Comparing the figures, it surmised that he had been referring to the 177 cases then pending for trial, and so discerned no apparent misrepresentation.

The Court, however, made its own comparison. At the time of the statement, the pending cases were 326 and 212. Six months later they stood at 254 and 107. Yet the cases still pending at the trial stage numbered 172 in Santiago City and 42 in Cordon, a total of 214 cases still pending for trial. The Court also noted the slow movement of cases: in Santiago City, 31 cases filed before the year 2000 remained unresolved, 4 of them governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure; in Cordon, 27 cases filed before the year 2000 remained unresolved, 11 of them under the Rules on Summary Procedure. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended a fine of 10,000 pesos for slow movement of cases, and noted that Judge Rosete faced seven administrative cases and had previously been fined and warned.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Rosete is administratively liable for dishonesty and lack of candor in representing to the Court that he had only a little more than one hundred cases pending for trial.
• Whether or not Judge Rosete may be held administratively liable at this stage for the slow movement of cases in the courts he presides, for non-observance of the Rules on Summary Procedure and the ninety-day limit for mandatory continuous trial.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 10 of the Code of Professional Responsibility provides:

A member of the bar owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court. He must not do any falsehood or consent to the doing of any in court; neither shall he mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice.

The Court invokes this canon to measure the misrepresentation made to it, and holds that the moral standard of honesty is expected even more of members of the Judiciary.

Rule 1.02 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.

This rule grounds the Court's discussion of the slow movement of cases in the courts presided by Judge Rosete.

Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

This rule supplies the standard of promptness against which the unresolved cases are measured.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled against Judge Rosete. It found that he committed an act of dishonesty and lack of candor in reporting that he had only an insignificant number of cases pending for trial. Even if his statement referred only to the 172 cases pending for trial in Santiago City, the statement was a blatant lie; and if the figures referred only to that court, he suppressed information on the cases pending in Cordon. The statement was made with no other intention than to deceive the Court for the sole purpose of justifying his reassignment to a court of his choice. The Court stressed that the lack of candor shown by the misrepresentation is incongruent with the primordial character a magistrate must possess, especially where the dishonesty was committed against the Court, and that dishonesty is anathema to the very nature of the functions a magistrate performs. His failure to adequately explain the discrepancy in his compliance bolstered the conclusion.

On the second issue, the Court agreed that the movement of cases was very slow, but it did not yet impose discipline for it. It held that the docket inventory, especially for Cordon, was incomplete to determine whether the Rules on Summary Procedure and the rule on mandatory continuous trial had been violated; for instance, the dates of arraignment were not indicated, and such information is material in determining whether there has been unjustifiable delay attributable to the judge. The Court reiterated that a judge must always be in control of proceedings to ensure that the mandatory periods are faithfully complied with, and that inability to decide within the required period or unreasonable delay constitutes gross inefficiency. But the dictates of due process and fair play demand that Judge Rosete first be given an opportunity to explain the causes of the delay.

Doctrine

A member of the bar owes candor, fairness, and good faith to the Court, and must not mislead or allow the Court to be misled by any artifice. The moral standard of honesty is equally, if not much more, expected of members of the Judiciary, who are the agents through which the Court ensures that the end of justice is served; dishonesty is anathema to the functions a magistrate performs. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay, and shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Inability to decide a case within the required period, or unreasonable delay in resolving a pending incident, constitutes gross inefficiency and subjects the judge to administrative sanctions. Before discipline may be imposed for delay, however, due process and fair play require that the judge be given an opportunity to explain the causes of the delay.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Rosete liable for lack of candor and dishonesty, ordered him to pay a fine of 5,000 pesos within ten days from notice, and directed him to show cause why he should not be disciplined for the delay in the disposition of cases and to furnish an updated docket inventory with the material dates required.

Remember This

The one line to memorize: a magistrate owes the Court candor, fairness, and good faith, and dishonesty toward the Court is anathema to the judicial office. Examiners use this case for judicial ethics on honesty and candor in representations to the Court, and for the rule that gross inefficiency from delay is sanctionable, but only after the judge is given the chance to explain.