OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JAMES V. GO AND MA. ELMER M. ROSALES, CLERK OF COURT, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, BRANCH 2, BUTUAN CITY, RESPONDENTS.

Office of the Court Administrator versus Judge Go

The Case

This is an administrative case arising from a judicial audit and physical inventory of cases conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Butuan City. The Office of the Court Administrator, acting on the audit report, proceeded against Judge James V. Go and Clerk of Court Ma. Elmer M. Rosales for gross incompetence, undue delay, neglect of duty, and related infractions. The case matters because it collects, in one decision, the Court's rules on a judge's duty to decide cases and resolve motions within the reglementary period, on the eight-hour service requirement for judges, on the sheriff's duty to make a return on the writ of execution, and on the clerk of court's duty of record management and supervision.

Procedural History

The judicial audit and physical inventory of cases was conducted from September 25 to October 2, 2006 in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Butuan City. In a Memorandum dated December 29, 2006, Judge Go, Clerk of Court Rosales, and Sheriff Reynaldo C. Mordeno were each directed to take appropriate action and to explain certain findings. The Court treated the judicial audit report as an administrative complaint and referred it to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended fines against all three. The Supreme Court reviewed the records and agreed with the findings but found the recommended penalties not commensurate with the infractions committed. The case was thus resolved by the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, in the exercise of its administrative supervision over courts and court personnel.

Facts

The audit found that Judge Go failed to immediately arraign the accused in 632 criminal cases, to archive 140 criminal cases, to act on summonses issued in 477 criminal cases, to act on 13 criminal cases with no further setting, and to resolve pending incidents in 15 criminal cases. He likewise failed to act on 17 civil cases from the time of their filing, to take further action on 32 civil cases, and to resolve motions or incidents in 88 civil cases. The audit team also observed that after conducting hearings for about an hour, Judge Go would leave the court premises and return only the following day. When advised not to do so, he said he had to rest early because he had suffered a stroke, that a judge is not required to render eight hours of service every working day, and that the Supreme Court is too far to monitor him. In his Certificate of Service, he failed to indicate that there were still unresolved motions and undecided civil cases submitted for decision.

Clerk of Court Rosales was found to have failed to conduct the inventory of cases, to apprise Judge Go of cases requiring immediate action, to issue writs of execution as ordered, and to issue the proper process in criminal cases, and nine case records were missing. Several records were unstitched and without pagination, cases jointly tried were not stitched together, minutes of proceedings were absent in almost all cases, the docket books were not updated, and the semestral docket inventory was inaccurate. Sheriff Mordeno failed to make the returns on the writs of execution in several civil cases; the returns were attached to the records only on January 15, 2007, after the audit.

In her comment, Clerk of Court Rosales claimed she constantly apprised Judge Go of cases requiring prompt action, that writs were issued but not attached to the records, and that the physical inventory had been scheduled; she prayed for another chance. Sheriff Mordeno explained that the returns were attached to the records only on January 15, 2007. Judge Go requested, through Clerk of Court Rosales, an extension of time to file comment, but filed none. In a letter dated March 12, 2007, he merely denied all the allegations and demanded a formal hearing. He later transmitted copies of constancia, orders, and decisions, and took partial action on many of the cases, but substantial numbers remained unacted upon.

Issues

• Whether or not Sheriff Mordeno is guilty of simple neglect of duty for failing to timely make a return on the writs of execution.
• Whether or not Clerk of Court Rosales is guilty of manifest negligence in the performance of her duties as clerk of court.
• Whether or not Judge Go is guilty of undue delay in rendering decisions and resolving motions and incidents, constituting gross inefficiency.
• Whether or not Judge Go is liable for failing to comply with the Resolution of the Supreme Court requiring him to comment on the audit findings.
• Whether or not Judge Go violated the requirement of at least eight hours of service every working day.

Applicable Provisions

Section 14 of Rule 39 of the Rules of Court, on the sheriff's return, provides:

When the judgment is satisfied in part or in full, the officer shall immediately make a return thereof to the court.

This is the basis for holding the sheriff liable for failing to make a timely return on the writs of execution.

Circular Number 13, issued on July 1, 1987, provides the guidelines for all trial courts on punctuality and strict observance of office hours:

Punctuality and strict observance of office hours. Punctuality in the holding of scheduled hearings is an imperative. Trial judges should strictly observe the requirement of at least eight hours of service a day, five hours of which should be devoted to trial, specifically from 8:30 a.m. to 12:00 noon and from 2:00 to 4:30 p.m. as required by paragraph 5 of the Interim Rules issued by the Supreme Court on January 11, 1988, pursuant to Section 16 of BP 129.

This is the standard Judge Go failed to meet when he left the court premises after about an hour of hearings and returned only the following day.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that it is mandatory for a sheriff to make a return on the writ of execution to the clerk or judge issuing it, and that if the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty days after receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason. The Court stressed that the submission of the return and periodic reports is not an empty requirement: it updates the court on the status of execution and ensures the speedy execution of decisions. Sheriff Mordeno failed to file the returns on time, filing them only on January 15, 2007, after the audit. He was thus guilty of simple neglect of duty.

On the second issue, the Court held that as Clerk of Court, Rosales was duty-bound to conduct periodic docket inventory, ensure that the records of each case are accounted for, initiate and cause the search of missing records, ensure orderly and efficient record management, and supervise the personnel under her office. Her failure to perform these duties constituted manifest negligence which cannot be countenanced.

On the third issue, the Court held that inability to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, and that delay in resolving motions and incidents within the ninety-day reglementary period fixed by the Constitution and the law is likewise not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. The Court reminded judges to be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the prompt administration of justice. Despite his partial compliance, Judge Go still had numerous criminal and civil cases unacted upon, unresolved, or undecided.

On the fourth issue, the Court held that a resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request and should be complied with promptly and completely. Judge Go's request for extension was merely relayed by the Clerk of Court, and even after the extension was granted he filed no comment, sending instead a three-line letter denying the allegations and demanding a formal hearing. His failure to comply betrayed a recalcitrant streak in character and disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive.

On the fifth issue, the Court held that Judge Go erroneously believed that being a judge excuses him from complying with the eight-hour service requirement every working day. Just like any ordinary government employee, judges are required to render at least eight hours of service. Circulars prescribing hours of work are not empty pronouncements; they promote efficiency and speed in the administration of justice and require prompt and faithful compliance.

Doctrine

A sheriff must make a return on the writ of execution to the clerk or judge issuing it, and if the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty days after receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the court and state the reason; failure to do so is simple neglect of duty.

A clerk of court must conduct periodic docket inventory, ensure that the records of each case are accounted for, initiate and cause the search of missing records, and supervise the personnel under the office; failure to perform these duties is manifest negligence.

Inability to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency; delay in resolving motions and incidents within the ninety-day reglementary period is likewise not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency.

A resolution of the Supreme Court is not a mere request and must be complied with promptly and completely; failure to comply betrays a recalcitrant streak in character and disrespect for the Court's lawful order.

Judges, like any ordinary government employee, must render at least eight hours of service every working day, five hours of which should be devoted to trial, as required by Circular Number 13.

Disposition

The Court found Sheriff Mordeno guilty of simple neglect of duty and fined him 5,000 pesos; found Clerk of Court Rosales guilty of manifest negligence and fined her 5,000 pesos, with a warning, and directed her to inform the Court of the status of two civil cases; and found Judge Go guilty of undue delay in rendering decision or order, suspending him from office for three months without salary or other benefits, fining him 10,000 pesos for manifest indifference to the Court's Resolution, reprimanding him for failure to strictly observe office hours, and directing him to fully comply with the December 29, 2006 Memorandum within sixty days.

Remember This

The single line worth memorizing is that delay in deciding cases and resolving motions within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, and that a judge must render at least eight hours of service every working day. Examiners like to use this case on the administrative liability of judges, clerks of court, and sheriffs, and on the penalties for undue delay, manifest negligence, and simple neglect of duty.