A.M. No. 93-7-1158-RTC. March 24, 1994
RE: LETTER OF MR. OCTAVIO KALALO.
PADILLA, J.:
On 1 June 1993, Mr. Octavio A. Kalalo wrote a letter addressed to
His Excellency, Vice President Joseph Estrada bringing to his attention certain
acts of Judge Arturo A. Romero, presiding judge of Branch 120, Caloocan City,
in connection with Civil Case No. C-13094 entitled “Leonie A. Mable vs.
Asia Soiltest, Inc. and Octavio A. Kalalo”, alleging therein among others
as follows:
“In his order dated March 6, 1990, Judge Romero gave the
parties thirty (30) days within which to submit their memoranda, after which
the case is deemed submitted for decision. x x x. the Clerk of Court
by registered mail, posted at Iloilo City, on April 10, 1990.
My counsel has not received copy of the memoranda of the plaintiff.
Up to the present, or more than three (3) years after the case was
submitted for decision, the case has not been decided by Judge Romero. The case should have been decided within
ninety (90) days after the case was deemed (sic) for decision on April 5,
1990. In fact, the monthly certificate
of service submitted by judges to the Supreme Court include certification that
the judge has no case that is pending for decision within ninety (90) days of
the date of certification. Thus, Judge
Romero must have submitted such false certificates.
x x x x x x x
x x
It is thus requested that necessary disciplinary action be meted
Judge Romero for this unreasonable long delay which has caused me prolonged
anxiety and inconveniences. Judges of
his breed have no place in the judiciary and should, if possible, be dismissed
outright for this and for having probably certified falsely for at least 36
times, that there is no case for decision pending in his sala by (sic) more
than ninety (90) days.”[1]
The aforesaid letter was referred to this Court through the
Office of the Court Administrator on 17 June 1993.
Acting upon the said letter, the Court required Judge Romero to
explain within seventy two (72) hours the reason for his undue delay in
deciding the aforesaid civil case.
In his explanation, Judge Romero states among others that:
“To begin with, the case has been decided on August 18, 1993,
two days after receiving a telephone call about the case in question from the
Office of the Honorable Court Administrator, and that a notice of appeal was
filed by defendant Octavio Kalalo on September 7, 1993.
For the record, the herein respondent has been with the judiciary
since November 8, 1986 or a period of six (6) years and ten (10) months, but,
unfortunately, for the first time, the respondent has inadvertently overlooked
to decide the case on time, under trying circumstances hereunder respectfully
averred, to wit:
In the main, the herein respondent has been sickly since mid 1990
for various ailments, such as heart ailment, hypertension, with severe
arthritis on the right shoulder, after x-ray finding by the FEU Hospital, and
gallbladder infection, although, notwithstanding the said physical constraints,
respondent presided over court sessions, excluding some official absences
against forfeitable leave, sick leave and vacation leave beginning April 7,
1990, about twenty (20) days leave of absences; 1991, nineteen (19) days leave
of absences; 1992, twelve (12) days leave of absences.
x x x x x x x
x x
Furthermore, upon inquiry from Atty. Alberto L. Tria, then Branch
Clerk of Court, now resigned since July 12, 1993, regarding the surrounding
circumstances about the delay in question, he gave the information that the
transcripts of stenographic notes of the case were submitted and completed in
June 1993. Thus, Atty. Trias’ letter
reads:
‘In reply to your letter inquiring as to when the Transcript of
Stenographic Notes were submitted by the stenographers in Civil Case No.
C-13094 entitled “LEONIE MABLE – versus – ASIA SOILTEST, INC., et
al.,” please be informed that said Transcript of Stenographic Notes were
submitted by the stenographers concerned on the first week of June 1993, if my
memory serves me right.’ (Annex ‘D’)
Of no little significance is the fact that there are pending 500
average monthly cases in 1989 to 1992 due to increased filed cases raffled to
most of the branches of this Court, and with the current brownouts, the
difficulties encountered by the Court and the staff could not be overemphasized.
That at the time the memorandum for the defendants was filed on
April 20, 1990 (not April 7, 1990), the then Acting Branch Clerk of Court, Mrs.
Romana San Juan, had resigned and the new Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Albert
L. Tria, assumed office on April 26, 1990.
Thereafter, the record of the case in question could not be located
among the thousands of records placed in the various old filing cabinets.
All things considered, respondent respectfully submits that
respondent’s failing health contributed mainly to the failure to oversee
effectively the unclogging of the docket and avoiding the delay in
question.”[2]
Thereafter, the Court referred the matter to the Office of the
Court Administrator for evaluation, report and recommendation.
On 4 November 1993, the Office of the Court Administrator
submitted its Report and Recommendation, the pertinent portion of which reads
as follows:
“The undersigned finds the explanation of Judge Arturo Romero
not entirely satisfactory. The
explanation for the delay in the resolution of the case cannot merit
unqualified acceptance, considering the circumstances prevailing and the
reasons he proferred. First, it took
him more than three (3) years before a decision was rendered. Secondly, his defense that his health has
deteriorated and the transcription of the stenographic notes were completed
only on June 1993 can not absolve his long inaction. The demands of speedy Justice administration cannot tolerate
such inaction of Judge Romero for three (3) years for it will defeat the very
spirit of a speedy dispensation of justice. His failing health cannot be considered as an excuse as the records do
not show that he had gone on an extended leave. If Judge Romero’s health has really impaired his efficiency, he
would have had a clear basis to request for extension of time within which to
decide the subject case. This he did
not do. A delay in the transcription of
stenographic notes by a stenographic reporter who is under his supervision and
control can not be considered a valid reason for the delay in rendering
judgment in a case. Precisely, judges
are directed to take down notes of salient portions of the hearing and proceed
in the preparation of decisions without waiting for the transcript of
stenographic notes. With or without the
transcribed stenographic notes, the 90-day period for deciding cases should be
adhered to. (Balagot vs. Opinion,
Administrative Matter No. MTJ-90-439, 20 March 1991, Per Curiam).
Premises considered, the undersigned respectfully recommends that
appropriate sanction be imposed on Judge Arturo Romero, RTC, Branch 120,
Caloocan City for unreasonable delay in the disposition of Civil Case No.
13094 (Leonie A. Mable vs. Asia Soiltest, Inc. and Octavio Kalalo).”[3]
We agree with the Report and Recommendation of the Office of the
Court Administrator.
It is the duty of a judge to take note of the cases submitted for
his decision and see to it that the same are decided within the ninety-day
period fixed by law (Adriano vs. Judge Eustaquio P. Sto. Domingo, Adm. Matter
No. RTJ-90-583, 4 October 1991, 202 SCRA 446), and failure to decide a case
within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency (Longbonn vs. Hon.
Emilio L. Polig, Adm. No. R-704-RTJ, 14 June 1990, 186 SCRA 557, citing Ubarra
vs. Tecson, 134 SCRA 4 [1985]; De Leon vs. Castro, 104 SCRA 241 [1981]; and In
re: Judge Jose F. Madara, 104 SCRA 245
[1981]).
WHEREFORE, Judge Arturo A. Romero is found guilty of GROSS
INEFFICIENCY and is reprimanded and ordered to pay a fine of FIVE THOUSAND
(P5,000.00) PESOS with a warning that a more drastic disciplinary action will
be taken against him for the commission of a similar irregularity.
SO ORDERED.
Narvasa, C.J., Cruz, Bidin, Regalado, Davide, Jr., Romero,
Bellosillo, Melo, Quiason, Puno, Vitug, and
Kapunan, JJ., concur.
Feliciano, J., on leave.
[1]
Rollo, pp. 4-5
[2]
Rollo, pp. 16-18
[3]
Rollo, p. 28