OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FRANCISCO C. JOVEN, RESPONDENT.

Office of the Court Administrator versus Judge Francisco C. Joven

The Case

This is an administrative case brought by the Office of the Court Administrator against Judge Francisco C. Joven, presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Bislig, Branch 29, Surigao del Sur. It arose from a judicial audit conducted in April 2000, which found that the respondent had left numerous cases undecided, unresolved, or unacted upon, and had committed several other lapses in the performance of his official duties. The case matters because it is the Supreme Court's clean statement of a judge's duty of promptness: that the ninety-day period to decide is counted from the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to file it, whichever comes earlier, and that a party's failure to file a memorandum never excuses the judge, who must take down notes during trial and decide on his own.

Procedural History

The judicial audit of the Regional Trial Court of Bislig, Branch 29, was conducted on April 10 and 11, 2000 by a team from the Office of the Court Administrator. In a resolution dated August 16, 2000, the Supreme Court directed the respondent to explain why no administrative sanction should be imposed on him, and referred the matter of the escape of prisoners from the Surigao del Sur Detention and Correctional Center to the Director of the Bureau of Jail Management and Penology for the filing of appropriate charges against the negligent jail personnel. The respondent submitted his letter-explanation dated November 6, 2000. In a resolution dated July 1, 2002, the Court referred the case to Justice Perlita J. Tria Tirona of the Court of Appeals for investigation, report, and recommendation. Justice Tria Tirona found that the respondent had exerted effort to put his docket in order after the audit, but that his failure to decide four cases within the reglementary period was inexcusable. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court as an administrative matter.

Facts

The audit team reported that the respondent failed to decide four cases within the reglementary period: criminal cases numbered 1504 and 2004, and civil cases numbered 374 and 715. It also reported that he failed to resolve pending incidents in several other cases within the mandatory period, failed to take appropriate action on eighteen criminal cases from the time they were filed, failed to act upon or set fifty-three cases for further hearing after a considerable lapse of time, failed to observe the guidelines on the archiving of cases in thirty-one cases, failed to submit the required monthly report on the condition of the jail and its prisoners, granted a reduced bail of 2,000 pesos in a case still under preliminary investigation where the municipal judge had fixed bail at 60,000 pesos, ordered the discharge of an accused before the posting of cash bail, did not apply for leave for two days, dismissed some criminal cases with prejudice on the ground of non-service of subpoena, and failed to conduct the required monthly visits at the detention center, where a number of prisoners had escaped.

In his explanation, the respondent reported that he had already decided the two criminal cases and had acted on many of the other cases after the audit. He attributed the delay in the criminal cases and in civil case 715 to the parties' failure to submit their memoranda, and the delay in civil case 374 to his awaiting the appraisal report of the municipal assessor, whom he had ordered to appraise the improvement on the subject lot. He admitted his failure to submit the jail inspection reports but claimed it was due to inadvertence, not negligence, and attached the reports. He explained that the reduced bail was reasonable because the case involved only a violation of the Forestry Law. He offered no explanation for his order of provisional dismissal of a frustrated murder case for failure of the complainant and his witnesses to appear, despite the records showing that the complainant's address had been incorrectly stated in the subpoena.

After the audit, the respondent's clerk of court informed the Court that all the undecided cases had been resolved except civil case 374, whose decision was deferred pending the appraisal report. During the pendency of the case, on August 21, 2002, the respondent compulsorily retired from service, manifested full compliance, and asked that the case be closed and terminated. The Court had earlier resolved to release his retirement benefits while withholding 60,000 pesos pending the resolution of three other administrative cases against him.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent is administratively liable for failing to decide criminal cases numbered 1504 and 2004 and civil cases numbered 374 and 715 within the reglementary period.
• Whether or not the respondent's explanations, namely the parties' failure to submit memoranda and his awaiting the municipal assessor's appraisal report, excuse the delay.
• Whether or not the respondent, having compulsorily retired from service, may still be penalized, and if so, with what penalty.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution provides:

The Supreme Court shall have the following powers: (1) Exercise original jurisdiction over cases affecting ambassadors, other public ministers and consuls, and over petitions for certiorari, prohibition, mandamus, quo warranto, and habeas corpus.

This is the constitutional anchor of the Court's power over the judiciary and of the duty of judges to resolve cases promptly within ninety days from the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum, which the Court invokes against the respondent.

Canon 3, 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 is the ethical standard the respondent violated by leaving the four cases undecided beyond the reglementary period.

Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, provides:

Less serious charges include: (1) Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case.

This is the charge on which the respondent was held liable, and it carries the penalty of a fine of not less than 10,000 pesos but not more than 20,000 pesos.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held the respondent liable. It agreed with the investigating justice that the reasons he cited were insufficient, noting that he exerted effort to comply with his duties only after his office was audited. The Court rejected his explanation that the delay was due to the parties' failure to submit memoranda. The Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct mandate that judges resolve their cases promptly within ninety days from the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum. Under Administrative Circular Number 28, issued on July 3, 1989, a case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the parties' evidence at the termination of the trial; but should the court allow or require the submission of a memorandum, the case is considered submitted upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier, and an extension of time to file the memorandum does not extend the ninety-day period to decide. The memoranda here were long overdue and did not seem to be forthcoming, and their filing is not indispensable, for it is the judge's obligation to take down notes during trial to assist him in the prompt disposition of cases without awaiting and relying on the parties' memoranda.

On the second issue, the Court likewise rejected the respondent's explanation for civil case 374. After issuing the order to the municipal assessor, he simply left it at that and failed to monitor the assessor's compliance, causing the delay. The Court stressed that delay in the resolution of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute. It acknowledged the heavy caseloads of judges and allowed a reasonable extension of time upon proper application and on meritorious grounds, but the respondent never asked for an extension, and for that failure he must be held accountable.

On the third issue, the Court held that the respondent, having compulsorily retired from service as of August 21, 2001, may still be penalized for the less serious charge of undue delay in rendering decisions, with a fine of not less than 10,000 pesos but not more than 20,000 pesos.

Doctrine

A judge must decide cases within ninety days from the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum. Where the court requires memoranda, the case is deemed submitted upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to file it, whichever is earlier, and any extension to file the memorandum does not extend the ninety-day period. The parties' failure to file memoranda never excuses delay, because the judge is obliged to take down notes during trial and to decide without relying on the memoranda. A judge who needs more time must apply for a reasonable extension on meritorious grounds; failing to do so makes him accountable. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, punishable by a fine of not less than 10,000 pesos but not more than 20,000 pesos, and the penalty may be imposed even after the judge has compulsorily retired, to be taken from his retirement benefits.

Disposition

The Court found the respondent liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and fined him 10,500 pesos, to be taken from his retirement benefits.

Remember This

Memorize this line: the case is submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to file it, whichever is earlier, and an extension to file the memorandum does not extend the ninety-day period. Examiners use this case to test the computation of the ninety-day period and the rule that a judge cannot hide behind the parties' failure to file memoranda, and to test whether administrative liability and the fine survive a judge's compulsory retirement.