SERAFIN B. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LIBERATO C. CORTES, RESPONDENT.

Before the Court is a complaint dated 15 September 1993 filed by complainant
Serafin B. Castillo against respondent Judge Liberato C. Cortes of the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 8, Batangas City, for failure to render decision within the
required period of ninety (90) days^[1]
in Criminal Case No. 3246 entitled “People of the Philippines vs. Serafin
Castillo.”

The present complaint stemmed from a criminal case for illegal
possession of firearms filed against herein complainant with the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 8, Batangas City presided over by respondent Judge Cortes. After trial on the merits, the case was
submitted for decision on 29 January 1991.^[2]
The decision, however, was rendered only on 16 August 1993, or two (2) years
and seven (7) months after the case had been submitted for decision. Complainant now comes before this Court to
seek redress alleging that the delay in the promulgation of the decision by
respondent judge caused him unnecessary stress and prevented him from
immediately filing his appeal therefrom.

In response, respondent judge in his Comment admits that there
was indeed a delay in rendering his decision. He reasons out, however, that such delay was not attributable to him but
mainly to the court stenographer, Mrs. Catalina Mindanao, who failed to
transcribe and submit stenographic notes relative to the case. Respondent judge avers that Mrs. Mindanao
was granted early retirement because of an arthritic right elbow, subject to
her commitment to complete all her stenographic backlog with priority to cases
involving detention prisoners; that in view of Mrs. Mindanao’s unsatisfactory
compliance with her said commitment, a series of orders were issued directing
her to submit her transcripts within a specified period, with respondent judge
coming close to ordering her arrest and confinement in the Batangas City Jail
if only to expedite the transcription of her notes, but consideration for her
sex and the hard conditions prevailing in the city jail stayed the preparation
of the order; that early last year, respondent judge came up with a plan (made
known to Mrs. Mindanao) whereby the Branch Clerk of Court was instructed to
coordinate with the PNP Station Commander in Lipa City to fetch Mrs. Mindanao
and confine her everyday in the PNP Station where she would be made to
transcribe her stenographic notes under the supervision of the Station
Commander; that the mere mention of the plan had a persuasive effect on Mrs.
Mindanao, who then reported regularly to the court thereafter to submit or type
her transcripts.

In addition, respondent judge ascribes as another cause for the
delay the legal research that had to be done, most of the pertinent research
materials being available only in Metro Manila. He further alleges that in view of the critical issue involved in
the case (i.e. the validity of “mission orders” for civilians), he
had to research in numerous places such as the Legal Service Office of the
Department of National Defense, the Constabulary Judge Advocate’s Office, the
Firearms and Explosives Unit in Camp Crame, Quezon City, and the Court of
Appeals Library.

Parenthetically, respondent judge claims that complainant, for
his part, likewise contributed to the delay by repeatedly postponing his
arraignment by invoking the pendency of his petition for review before the
Department of Justice.

Lastly, respondent judge emphasizes that the delay in the
disposition of the case was neither intentional nor due to malice or ill-will,
but rather brought about by the circumstances as above narrated.

We find merit in the complaint and find respondent judge guilty
of delay in the promulgation of the decision. We are convinced that his failure to render the decision in the
above-captioned case, far beyond the prescribed period of ninety (90) days from
its submission for decision, constitutes serious misconduct to the detriment of
the honor and integrity of his office and in derogation of a speedy
administration of justice.

Rule 3.01 and Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct provide:

“Rule 3.01. A judge shall be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence.

“Rule 3.05. A judge shall dispose of the court’s business
promptly and decide cases within the required periods.”

A judge is mandated to render a decision not more than ninety
(90) days from the time a case is submitted for decision. In the present case, we note that the court
stenographer, Mrs. Mindanao, was remiss in the performance of her duties. This notwithstanding, it still remained
incumbent upon respondent judge to have devised an efficient recording and
filing system in his court so that no disorderliness could affect the flow of
cases and their speedy disposition, particularly those submitted for
decision. A judge cannot take refuge
behind the inefficiency of, or mismanagement by court personnel. Proper and efficient court management is as
much his responsibility. He is directly
responsible for the proper discharge of his official functions. “Court personnel are not the guardians
of a Judge’s responsibilities.” (Secretary of Justice vs. Legaspi,
A.C. No. 269-J, September 10, 1981, 107 SCRA 233).^[3]
Respondent was bound to take notes of proceedings before him and not rely on
stenographic notes.^[4]

Accordingly, this Court will not tolerate the serious misconduct
of respondent judge nor will it absolve him on account of the excuses he has
advanced. In accepting his office, he
took in the responsibilities that necessarily attach to such exalted
position. He is mandated to abide by
the rules without condition and must, at all times, exercise extreme caution so
as not to commit an injustice to those who seek refuge under the very law he
has sworn to uphold.

“Members of the judiciary should display not only the highest
integrity but must at all times conduct themselves in such manner as to be
beyond reproach and suspicion. (Quiz
vs. Cantano, 107 SCRA 196; Montemayor vs. Collado, 107 SCRA 258) The
Court had likewise stressed in De la Paz vs. Inutan (64 SCRA 540) that
‘the judge is the visible represention of the law and, more importantly of
justice. From him, the people draw
their will and awareness to obey the law. They see in him an intermediary of justice between two conflicting
interests, xxx. Thus, for the judge to
return that regard, he must be the first to abide by the law and weave an
example for the others to follow. He
should be studiously careful to avoid even the slightest infraction of the
law.’ (See also Fonacier-Abano v. Ancheta, 107 SCRA 538).”^[5]

WHEREFORE, in view of respondent judge’s gross neglect of
duty in having failed to promulgate the decision in Criminal Case No. 3246 within
the prescribed period of ninety (90) days from its submission for decision,
respondent Judge Liberato C. Cortes is hereby ORDERED to pay a fine of FIVE
THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same
or any similar act shall be more severely dealt with by the Court.

Let a copy of this Resolution be entered in respondent judge’s
records.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Regalado, Puno, and Mendoza, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Constitution, Art. VIII, Sec. 15(1).

^[2]
Rollo, p. 6.

^[3]
Nidua vs. Lazaro, AM-No. R-465 MTJ, June 29, 1989, 174 SCRA 581.

^[4]
Lawan vs. Moleta, AM-1696-MJ, June 19, 1979, 90 SCRA 579.

^[5]
Ompoc vs. Torres, 178 SCRA 14 (1989).