JUDICIAL AUDIT REPORT, Regional Trial Court, Branches 21, 35 & 36 and Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branches 1 & 2, Santiago City; Regional Trial Court, Branch 17, Ilagan, Is…

Following a judicial audit and physical inventory of records conducted by a
Judicial Audit Team^[1] in the Regional
Trial Court (“RTC”) of Santiago City, Branches 21, 35 and 36; RTC of
Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch 31; RTC of Ilagan, Isabela, Branch 17; Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (“MTCC”) of Santiago City, Branches 1 and 2; and Municipal
Trial Court (‘MTC”) of Cauayan and Echague, Isabela, and considering the
recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator (“OCA”) in its
memorandum, dated 23 February 1998, to the Chief Justice, the Court, in its 23rd
June 1998 resolution, resolved, among other things, to

– (1) Direct Judge Serio A. Plan of MTC, Cauayan, Isabela, to explain the
delay in the resolution of the following cases:

“1. CV-1896 – Submitted for Resolution on August 29, 1996;

2. CV-1894 – Submitted for resolution on November 4, 1996;

3. CV-1932 – Submitted for resolution on December 16, 1996;

4. CV-1946 – Submitted for decision on November 5, 1997;

5. CV-2034 – Submitted for decision on November 12, 1997; and

6. CV-1706 – Submitted for decision on March 17, 1997.”^[2]

(2) Direct Judge Wilfredo P. Ambrosio of RTC, Cabarroguis, Quirino, Branch
31, to explain the delay in the resolution of the following cases:

“1. 426 – Submitted for decision on June 16, 1997;

2. 427 – Submitted for decision on June 16, 1997;

3. 434 – Submitted for decision on June 16, 1997;

4. 387 – Submitted for decision on June 16, 1997;

5. 194 – Submitted for decision on October 19, 1995;

6. 256 – Submitted for decision on July 26, 1995;

7. 430 – Submitted for decision on August 25, 1997;

8. 292 – Submitted for decision on January 27, 1997;

9. 169 – Submitted for decision on July 7, 1997

10. 373 – Submitted for decision on August 25, 1997; (with draft
decision)

11. 324 – Submitted for decision on May 15, 1996;

12. 425 – Submitted for decision on August 25, 1997; 13. 393 – Submitted for
resolution on March 3, 1997;

14. 408 – Submitted for resolution on August 25, 1996;

15. 83 – Submitted for resolution on October 10, 1997;

16. 368 – Submitted for resolution on August 7, 1994; and

17. 370 – Submitted for resolution on August 20, 1996.”^[3]

Judge Ambrosio was likewise required to explain why the following cases were
unacted upon for a considerable length of time; to wit:

(3) Direct Judge Fe Albano Madrid of RTC, Santiago City, Branch 21, to
explain the delay in the resolution of Civil Case No. 0105, submitted for
decision on 09 October 1997, and to explain why the following cases were unacted
upon for a considerable length of time; to wit:

(4) Direct Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., RTC of Santiago City, Branch 35,
to explain the delay in the resolution of the following cases:

Judge Calimag, furthermore, was required to explain why the following cases
were unacted upon for a considerable length of time; to wit:

(5) Direct Judge Efren A. Lamorena, RTC of Santiago City, Branch 36, to
explain the delay in the resolution of the following cases:

“CRIMINAL CASES

1. 1931 – Submitted for decision on December 13, 1995;
2. 2287 – Submitted for decision on September 18, 1997;
3. 2094 – Submitted for decision on January 15, 1997; and
4. 0226 – Submitted for decision on July 2, 1997.

“CIVIL CASES

1. 2151 – Submitted for decision on October 24, 1995;
2. 21521 – Submitted for decision on October 24, 1995
3. 2128 – Submitted for decision on November 7, 1995;
4. 2150 – Submitted for decision on January 8, 1996;
5. 1047 – Submitted for decision on September 10, 1997
6. 2181 – Submitted for decision on January 17, 1997;
7. 2141 – Submitted for decision on August 14, 1997;
8. 2248 – Submitted for decision on May 30, 1997;
9. 1076 – Submitted for decision on September 18, 1996;
10. 2089 – Submitted for decision on June 6, 1996;
11. 2154 – Submitted for decision on May 16, 1995;
12. 2137 – Submitted for resolution on March 13, 1997;
13. 2339 – Submitted for resolution on June 17, 1997;
14. 2052 – Submitted for resolution on January 16, 1997;
15. 2158 – Submitted for resolution on August 8, 1996;
16. 2156 – Submitted for resolution on March 1, 1996
17. 2232 – Submitted for resolution on March 28, 1996;
18. 2143 – Submitted for decision on October 24, 1995;
19. 2147 – Submitted for decision on August 22, 1995;
20. 2292 – Submitted for decision on December 11, 1996;
21. 2243 – Submitted for decision on October 29, 1997;
22. LRC 1921 – Submitted for decision on August 13, 1997;
23. Spc. Proc. 0182 – Submitted for decision on January 31, 1997;
24. Spc. Proc. 0206 – Submitted for decision on January 20, 1997;
25. 2300 – Submitted for decision on October 6, 1997;
26. 0103 – Submitted for decision on February 12, 1996; and
27. 2220 – Submitted for decision on October 23, 1997.”^[8]

Judge Lamorena was also asked to explain why the following cases were unacted
on for a considerable length of time; to wit:

(6) Direct Judge Ruben R. Plata, MTCC, Santiago City, to explain his delay in
acting on the following cases:

Judge Fe Albano Madrid, Judge Demetrio Calimag, Jr., Judge Efren Lamorena and
Judge Sergio Plan submitted their respective compliances. In its Memorandum,
dated 11 May 1999, the OCA reported thusly:

“JUDGE FE ALBANO MADRID
RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City

“Judge Madrid gave no explanation for the delay in the resolution of Civil
Case No. 0105 and why there were cases which were unacted on for a considerable
length of time. All she stated were the present status of the said cases, (pp.
54-56, rollo).

“a. Delay in the Resolution of Civil Case No. 0105.

Judge Madrid informed that Civil Case No. 0105 has long been dismissed on
February 7, 1984. What might have been referred to was Spc. Proc. No. 0105 where
there is a pending Motion for Reconsideration. The petitioner in the said case
submitted his Supplemental Offer of Documentary Evidence on October 10, 1997 but
was inadvertently missed. Thus, the Motion for Reconsideration was resolved only
on February 10, 1998.

“b. Unacted cases for a considerable length of time.

1. Civil Case 2348 For Declaration of Nullity of Marriage – Summons to
   the defendant was returned unserved on October 23, 1977 with the information
   that the defendant is abroad. There is still no action by the plaintiff to have
   summons effected by publication.
2. Civil Case 2441 For Damages – Submitted for resolution after the
   plaintiff submitted his written opposition within ten days to the Motion to
   Dismiss which was filed by the defendants on August 7, 1998.
3. Civil Case 2230 For Damages – Proceedings were suspended by the Court
   of Appeals on October 3, 1996. The Court of Appeals decision was received on
   February 14, 1997 and the proceedings resumed. On July 7, 1998 the case was
   dismissed upon the manifestation of the parties that they already entered into
   an amicable settlement.
4. Civil Case 2425 For Specific Performance – No answer was filed by the
   defendant. A motion to declare in default was filed by the plaintiff only on
   June 23, 1998 which was granted on June 26, 1998. On July 21, 1998, during the
   scheduled ex-parte reception of evidence, the plaintiff moved for the suspension
   of the proceedings for ninety days to restudy the complaint. The motion was
   granted.
5. Civil Case 2317 For Damages – Summons was returned unserved with the
   information that the defendant is not known in the address given. There is still
   no action by the defendant.
6. Civil Case 2383 For Forcible Entry – This is an appeal from the MTCC,
   Santiago City. Appellant was directed to submit his appeal memorandum within
   thirty days. He failed to submit. Appeal was dismissed on August 17, 1998.
7. Civil Case 2433 For Unlawful Detainer – This is an appeal from the
   MTCC, Santiago City. Appellant was directed to submit his appeal memorandum
   within thirty days. He failed to submit. Appeal was dismissed on August 17,
   1998.
8. Civil Case 2312 For Specific Performance – Complaint was dismissed on
   August 17, 1998.
9. Civil Case 503 – This is an old case which was dismissed as early as
   January 20, 1987.
10. Civil Case 2432 For Unlawful Detainer – This is an appeal from the
    MTCC, Santiago City. It was dismissed on July 22, 1998 for failure of the
    appellant to submit his appeal memorandum.
11. Civil Case 2313 For Annulment of Sale – On trial.

“JUDGE DEMETRIO D. CALIMAG, JR.
RTC, Branch 35,
Santiago City

“Judge Calimag likewise offered no explanations for the delay in the
resolution of some cases in his sala. Instead he simply gave the statuses of the
cases as follows, (pp. 70-72, rollo):

“Criminal Cases:

1. 35-1898 – Decided on September 17, 1998.
2. 35-1977 – Decided on September 17, 1998.
3. 35-1978 – Decided on September 17, 1998.
4. 35-1979 – Decided on September 17, 1998.

“Civil Cases:

1. (LRC) 35-2161 – Decided on September 1, 1998.
2. 35-2077 – Decided on August 10, 1998.
3. 35-2318 – Decided on September 1, 1998.
4. (LRC) 35-2095 – for Pre-Trial Conference on September 3, 1998.
5. (LRC) 35-2087 – DISMISSED without prejudice on August 20, 1998.
6. 35-2396 – DISMISSED on August 21, 1998.
7. 35-2165 – Archived on August 20, 1998.

“Special Proceedings:

1. 35-0205 – DISMISSED without prejudice on August 31, 1998.
2. 35-0206 – DISMISSED without prejudice on August 31, 1998.

“Archived Criminal Cases:

1. 35-2052 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
2. 35-2055 – Archived on February 26, 1998
3. 35-2118 – Archived on March 26, 1998.
4. 35-2126 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
5. 35-2184 – Archived on March 30, 1998.
6. 35-2243 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
7. 35-2257 – Archived on May 28, 1998
8. 35-2215 – Archived on May 28, 1998
9. 35-2143 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
10. 35-1969 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
11. 35-1515 – Archived on February 25, 1998.
12. 35-2277 – Archived on June 29, 1998.
13. 35-2407 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
14. 35-2415 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
15. 35-1945 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
16. 35-2454 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
17. 35-2259 – Archived on June 29, 1998.
18. 35-2284 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
19. 35-2323 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
20. 35-2332 – DISMISSED on February 3, 1998.
21. 35-2362 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
22. 35-1958 – Transferred to RTC 36 on June 30, 1995.
23. 35-2041 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
24. 35-1791 – Archived on February 25, 1998.
25. 35-2078 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
26. 35-2130 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
27. 35-2124 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
28. 35-2171 – Archived on April 30, 1998
29. 35-2223 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
30. 35-2240 – Archived on June 29, 1998.
31. 35-1849 – Archived on February 25, 1998.
32. 35-2141 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
33. 35-2387 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
34. 35-2019 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
35. 35-0022 – DECIDED by RTC 21 on December 29, 1986.
36. 35-2312 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
37. 35-2408 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
38. 35-1922 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
39. 35-1976 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
40. 35-2455 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
41. 35-2263 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
42. 35-2290 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
43. 35-2442 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
44. 35-2334 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
45. 35-2377 – Raffled at RTC 36.
46. 35-1966 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
47. 35-2046 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
48. 35-2079 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
49. 35-2104 – Archived on March 30, 1998.
50. 35-2148 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
51. 35-2178 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
52. 35-2224 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
53. 35-2244 – Archived on June 29, 1998.
54. 35-2339 – DISMISSED on February 3, 1998.
55. 35-2142 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
56. 35-1907 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
57. 35-1159 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
58. 35-2220 – RAFFLED at RTC 36.
59. 35-2314 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
60. 35-2410 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
61. 35-1905 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
62. 35-2030 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
63. 35-2454 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
64. 35-2280 – Archived on June 29, 1998.
65. 35-2315 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
66. 35-2325 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
67. 35-2334 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
68. 35-2366 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
69. 35-1991 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
70. 35-1687 – Archived on February 25, 1998.
71. 35-2093 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
72. 35-2105 – DISMISSED on November 17, 1997.
73. 35-2155 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
74. 35-2182 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
75. 35-2232 – Archived on June 29, 1998.
76. 35-2256 – Archived on June 29, 1998.
77. 35-2214 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
78. 35-2143 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
79. 35-1914 – Archived on March 28, 1998.
80. 35-1513 – Archived on February 25, 1998.
81. 35-2275 – Archived on June 29, 1998.
82. 35-2081 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
83. 35-2411 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
84. 35-1924 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
85. 35-2031 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
86. 35-0973 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
87. 35-2282 – Archived on June 29, 1998.
88. 35-2316 – Archived on May 28, 1998.
89. 35-2329 – Archived on August 25, 1998.
90. 35-2377 – Raffled to RTC 36.
91. 35-1906 – Archived on February 26, 1998.
92. 35-2018 – Archived on April 30, 1998.
93. 35-1274 – Archived on February 25, 1998.

“JUDGE EFREN A. LAMORENA
RTC, Branch 36, Santiago
City

“Judge Efren A. Lamorena, RTC, Branch 36, Santiago City, submitted his
reasons (pp. 60-61, rollo) for the delay in the resolution of some cases in his
sala as follows:

“1. Due to his health problem (a vision impairment) caused by a cataract
disease clouding his eyes with intense pain and compromising as it compromised
his eyesight thus, preventing him to carry his normal work; (Judge Lamorena
informed that as soon as his economic life improves, he will try to submit
himself for an eye operation. Just recently he suffered a stroke).

“2. His health problem is compounded by the hard working condition of his
office. It is very small and crowded. All the equipments of the court are
stocked without any airconditioning unit. (The Team noted that Judge Lamorena
has no court and staff room.) He conducts his trials at the corridors and shares
the room with the Office of the Clerk of Court.

“3. His sala was designated to try heinous crimes;

“4. He likewise revealed that he commutes daily in a public transportation at
a distance of seventy two (72) kilometers one way with a travel time of at least
four (4) hours a day.

“On November 12, 1998 (p. 80, rollo) Judge Lamorena informed that of the
thirty-one (31) cases mentioned in Item No. 5-a, only six (6) cases remain to be
decided or resolved, while seven (7) of the cases listed in Item No. 5-c are
likewise being resolved.

“Judge Lamorena informed that had it not been for the Super Typhoon Iliang
and later Loleng whose destructive fury devastated the province of Isabela,
including his residence, he would have resolved already all the said cases.

“He likewise manifested that he is already ready to resume trying cases in
his sala.

“It is should be noted that Judge Lamorena however did not furnish this
Office copies of his decisions.

“JUDGE SERGIO A. PLAN
MTC, Cauayan, Isabela

“In his letter dated August 27, 1998 (p. 68, rollo), Judge Plan simply
informed the status of the following cases:

“1. Civil Case No. 1706 – Not submitted for decision because
defendants have not been served with summons as they could not be located. Due
to the inaction of the plaintiff, the case is ordered archived.

“2. Civil Case Nos. 1894 & 1896 – The Court archived said cases
due to the inaction of the plaintiff for unreasonable length of time.

“3. Civil Case No. 1932 – Not immediately acted upon due to the
withdrawal of counsel Atty. Agustin Ladera for the plaintiff and substituted by
new counsel Atty. Bernard Olalia who has not filed a formal appearance as
counsel for the plaintiff and to have the motion to declare defendants in
default set for hearing with notice to the defendants. Hence, due to the
inaction of the plaintiff, the Court archived the case.

“4. Civil Cases Nos. 1946 & 2034 – Not immediately decided due to
the failure of the plaintiff to submit the exhibits offered as evidence and as
the Court was about to archive the cases, the plaintiff submitted the required
exhibits and thereupon, the Court rendered its decision dated March 23 and March
31, 1998, respectively.”^[11]

Judge Wilfredo Ambrosio failed to comply with the directive of the Court. The
OCA advised the Court that Judge Ambrosio had resigned from the service upon the
filing of his certificate of candidacy although his resignation papers, for
purposes of payment of his benefits, were yet being processed.

With respect to Judge Fe Albano Madrid, the OCA observed that the delay, for
only a number of days, in the resolution of Civil Case No. 0105, was excusable.
The slow movement in the other cases was found to be attributable, not to the
Judge, but mainly to the parties. .

The OCA noted that Judge Calimag, in not proffering a single explanation, had
tacitly admitted his failure to resolve the cases assigned to him within the
reglementary period.

The OCA said that Judge Plan had given no explanation for his delay in
disposing the cases in his sala except to state that it was due to the
fault of the parties.

The OCA expressed its sympathy over the plight of Judge Lamorena who suffered
a stroke and eventually died while in service. Judge Wilfredo Tumaliwan was
forthwith designated as Acting Presiding Judge of Branch 36 vice Judge
Lamorena.

In his compliance made on 11 May 1999, Judge Plata averred that Criminal
Cases No. 3433, 3434, 2778, 3435, 3071, 2840 and 3570 (instead of 5570), as well
as Civil Cases No. 320, 327, 399, 322, 328, 325, 330, 326, and 331, were already
decided. The Judge, however, failed to submit copies of his orders and decisions
in the criminal cases. The OCA, in its 28 January 2000 memorandum, observed that
Judge Plata’s orders and decisions were issued only about four (4) months after
the judicial audit was conducted. The OCA noted that Civil Cases No. 331, 330,
322 and 327, while all dated 05 June 1998, were released for mailing only on 07
August 1998 or almost two (2) months after they were decided.

The OCA recommended that –

“1. Judge Fe Albano Madrid, RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City, be
REPRIMANDED for the delay in the resolution of Sp. Proc. No. 0105;

“2. Judge Demetrio Calimag, RTC, Branch 35, Santiago City, be FINED
P5,000.00 for his failure to justify the delay in the resolution of the
following cases:

CRIMINAL CASES		CIVIL CASES
1. 1898	3. 1978	1. LRC Case 35-2161
2. 1977	4. 1979	2. 2077
		3. 2318

“3. Judge Sergio Plan, MTC, Cauayan, Isabela, be FINED P5,000.00 for
the delay in the resolution of the following cases, deductible from his
retirement benefits:

1. CV-1896	4. CV-1946
2. CV-1894	5. CV-2034
3. CV-1932	6. CV-1706

“4. Judge Wilfredo Ambrosio, RTC, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino, be
FINED P10,000.00 for his failure to decide the following cases:

1. 426	7. 430	13. 393
2. 427	8. 292	14. 408
3. 434	9. 169	15. 83
4. 387	10. 373	16. 368
5. 194	11. 324	17. 370
6. 256	12. 425

and willful disregard of the resolutions of the Honorable Court, to be
deducted from the retirement benefits he may receive;

“5. Judge Ruben Plata, MTCC, Santiago City, be SEVERELY REPRIMANDED
for his failure to act with dispatch on the following cases:

The OCA did not suggest any administrative sanction against the late Judge
Lamorena for “humanitarian reasons.”

The Court agrees with the findings, and adopts the recommendations, of the
OCA.

In A.M. No. 97-9-283-RTC (Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Regional
Trial Court, Branch 1, Bangued, Abra, 31 May 2000), the Court deemed it
inappropriate to impose sanction upon Judge Francisco O. Villarta who died
during the pendency of the case against him. For like reasons, no administrative
sanction would here be imposed on Judge Efren A. Lamorena.

In the resolution of the Court on 20 July 1999, the parties were required to
manifest within ten (10) days from notice if they would be willing to submit the
case for resolution on the basis of the reports on record. The parties having
failed to comply with its directive, the Court resolved to dispense with their
manifestation.

The Court agrees with the OCA that the lapses on the part of the judges can
be traced to their failure in the proper observance of the following circulars
of the Court; to wit:

(1) Administrative Circular No. 1, dated 28 January 1988, which states:

“1. Effective Docket Control:

1.1 All presiding judges of trial courts must, upon assumption of
office, and every semester thereafter on June 30th and December 31st
of every year conduct a physical inventory of their dockets for the
purpose of determining the actual number of cases pending in their salas.

1.2 An inventory shall be prepared to indicate the cases pending
trial, the cases submitted for decision and the cases that have
been archived. Copy of such inventory shall be submitted to the Supreme
Court through the Court Administrator within thirty (30) days from receipt of
this Circular and the Inventory Form.

“1.3 The Presiding Judge and the Clerk of Court shall initial the
Records or Rollos of each case to indicate the date of actual inventory.
The inventory shall include a list of cases submitted for decision,
indicating the title and case number and the date of filing of
said case. An updated inventory is to be submitted to the Supreme Court every
six (6) months thereafter as required in Paragraph 1.1. hereof.”^[13]

The circular has been restated by the Court in Administrative Circular No.
10-94 of 29 June 1994.

(2) Circular No. 13, dated 01 July 1987, reiterated in Administrative
Circular No. 3-99, dated 15 January 1999, which mandates:

“To insure speedy disposition of cases, the following guidelines must be
faithfully observed:

I. The session hours of all Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts,
Municipal Trial Courts in Cities, Municipal Trial Courts, and Municipal Circuit
Trial Courts shall be from 8:30 A.M. to noon and from 2:00 P.M. to 4:30 P.M.,
from Monday to Friday. The hours in the morning shall be devoted to the conduct
of trial, while the hours in the afternoon shall be utilized for (1) the conduct
of pre-trial conferences; (2) writing of decisions, resolutions, or orders; or
(3) the continuation of trial on the merits, whenever rendered necessary, as may
be required by the Rules of Court, statutes, or circulars in specified
cases.

However, in multi-sala courts in places where there are few practicing
lawyers, the schedule may be modified upon request of the Integrated Bar of the
Philippines such that one-half of the branches may hold their trial in the
morning and the other half in the afternoon. Except those requiring immediate
action, all motions should be scheduled for hearing on Friday afternoons, or if
Friday is a non-working day, in the afternoon of the next business day. The
unauthorized practice of some judges of entertaining motions or setting them for
hearing on any other day or time must be immediately stopped.

“II. Judges must be punctual at all times.

“III. The Clerk of Court, under the direct supervision of the Judge, must
comply with Rule 20 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure regarding the calendar
of cases.

“IV. There should be strict adherence to the policy on avoiding postponements
and needless delay.

Sections 2, 3 and 4 of Rule 30, 1997 Rules on Civil Procedure on adjournments
and postponements and on the requisites of a motion to postpone trial for
absence of evidence or for illness of a party or counsel should be faithfully
observed.

Lawyers, as officers of the court, are enjoined to cooperate with judges to
ensure swift disposition of cases.”^[14]

The Court, here again, must stress that while it is not unaware of the heavy
caseload of judges nor is it impervious to the plight of judges, it cannot,
however, take too lightly Rule 3.05, of Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial Conduct
requiring the disposition of the court business and of pending cases or
incidents promptly and seasonably.^[15]
All that a judge really needs to do, in case of great difficulty, would be to
request for an extension of time over which the Court has, almost invariably,
been sympathetic.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVED, conformably with the recommendations of
the OCA, that –

1. Judge Fe Albano Madrid, RTC, Branch 21, Santiago City, be REPRIMANDED
   for the delay in the resolution of Sp. Proc. No. 0105;
2. Judge Demetrio D. Calimag, Jr., RTC, Branch 35, Santiago City, be
   FINED P5,000.00 for his failure to amply justify the delay in the
   resolution of the following cases:

3. Judge Sergio A. Plan, MTC, Cauayan, Isabela, be FINED P5,000.00 for
his failure to amply justify the delay in the resolution of the following cases,
deductible from his retirement benefits:

4. Judge Wilfredo Ambrosio, RTC, Branch 31, Cabarroguis, Quirino, be
FINED P10,000.00 for his failure to decide the following cases:

and for willful disregard of the resolutions of the Honorable Court, said
fine to be deducted from the retirement benefits he might be entitled to;

5. Judge Ruben R. Plata, MTCC, Santiago City, be SEVERELY REPRIMANDED
for while he was able to heretofore decide the following cases, to wit:

he, nevertheless, had failed to act therein with dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban,
Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santaigo, and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.