Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=40378:a-m-no-99-11-423-rtc-august-16,-2000-report-on-the-judicial-audit-conducted-in-the-regional-trial-court&amp;catid=1396&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 18:39:33+00:00

Document:
REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCHES 87 AND 98, QUEZON CITY.
A.	CRIMINAL 2 — One (1) Case.
B.	CIVIL 3 — Seven (7) Cases.
A.	CRIMINAL 4 — Thirty-one (31) Cases.
B.	CIVIL 5 — Three (3) Cases.
Records do not show that Judge Justo Sultan ever requested for an extension of time within which to decide the cases submitted before him.
When directed to explain 6 the cause for the delay in the disposition of the aforesaid cases, Judge Sultan asked for the consideration and understanding of the court. He lamented that since his mandatory retirement on November 2, 1999, he has suffered much from economic dislocation, as a result of the non-release of his retirement benefits pending termination of this administrative case.
He stressed that when Justice Molina, who was with the audit team as Consultant, learned of the state of affairs in subject sala, the former advised him to immediately stop conducting trials and just concentrate on deciding cases. He then sent a letter to the Court Administrator on June 28, 1999, requesting for an assisting judge.
Respondent imputes the clogged condition of cases in Branch 98 to the additional workload as a designated Special Criminal Court, 7 and as a Pairing Court for Branch 99. Furthermore, his confinement in the hospital owing to his failing health and old age contributed to his lapses as presiding judge of Branch 98. Respondent pointed out that had the Court Administrator acted on his request for an assisting judge, the situation in his court could have improved.
Except for the aforestated general allegation, however, respondent judge has not given any specific explanation for failing to decide the cases mentioned in the Court’s Resolution of December 7, 1999.
As regards his failure to submit the required Docket and Inventory of Cases since his appointment in 1993, respondent professed that he was unaware of the non-compliance until he got wind of it through the Resolution dated December 7, 1999. Considering that he received his salary regularly until his retirement in October of 1999, he assured that there have been no problem with his performance that would call for sanctions against him.
Respondent also reasoned that he was always been of the belief that his Branch Clerk of Court had complied with the requirements as the latter allegedly assured him that the periodic report pertaining to the inventory of cases had been promptly sent to the Office of the Court Administrator. He disclosed that Atty. Reynaldo Elcano performed his duties faithfully and well during the seventeen (17) years that he was the Branch Clerk of Court so much so that he trusted him in the management of the court.
Finally, the respondent went on to paint a picture of dedicated government service, placing reliance on his sixteen (16) years in the judiciary, which he allegedly rendered with competence and loyalty.
After a careful examination of the records on-hand, the Court finds the explanation of the respondent judge to be unsatisfactory.
Conformably, the rules require the courts to decide cases ready for decision within three (3) months from date of submission. With respect to cases falling under the Rules on Summary Procedure, first level courts are only allowed thirty (30) days following the receipt of the last affidavit and position paper, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, within which to render judgment. 12 However, in the case under consideration, subject cases have remained undecided beyond such period. Canon 3, Rule 3.09 requires judges to manage their dockets in such a manner that the work of their court is to be accomplished with reasonable dispatch. 13 The excuses respondent judge offered for the delay in resolving the aforesaid cases were incomplete and not entirely persuasive as to absolve him completely of any administrative liability.
Be that as it may, the Court deems it necessary to temper respondent’s liability in light of the undeniable fact that, as shown by his medical certificate, he had to contend with an illness during the later part of his service in the judiciary, which illness undoubtedly contributed to the deterioration of his health and adversely affected his work efficiency.
Melo, Vitug, Panganiban and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
1.	Composed of Atty. Ma. Carina M. Cunanan, Susan Luber, Charito C. Cruz, Regina A. Gimena and Ephraim R. Avanzado, with Justice Conrado M. Molina as Consultant.
2.	CRIMINAL CASE — 98-7814-49. Submitted for decision on August 18, 1999, with decision dated September 3, 1999, for release.
g.	32619. Submitted for decision on July 5, 1999.
q.	94-52772, 94-52773, 94-52774, 94-52775, 94-52776, 94-52777.
c.	99-36859. Submitted for decision on June 7, 1999.
6.	Resolution of dated December 7, 1999.
7.	Designated as such on November 12, 1996.
9.	Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-lapu City, 289 SCRA 398, 404.
10.	Bernardo v. Fabros, 307 SCRA 28, 36 citing: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC-Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City; 292 SCRA 8.
11.	Rule 3.05, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct.
12.	Raboca v. Pantanosas, Jr., 245 SCRA 293, 295; citing: Section 15, Article VIII, Constitution of the Philippines and Section 10, Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
13.	Re: Report on the Judicial Audit of Cases in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Iriga City, 299 SCRA 382, 387.
14.	Bernardo v. Fabros, supra, p. 35 citing: Cf: paragraph 8 of Canon of Judicial Ethics.
15.	Abarquez v. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109, 120 citing: Report on the Audit and Inventory of Cases in the RTC, Branch 11, Balayan, Batangas, AM. No. 93-11-1311-RTC, July 26, 1994, 234 SCRA 502 and Re: Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., A.M. No. 95-3-89-RTC, August 23, 1995, 247 SCRA 519.
16.	Bolalin v. Occiano, 266 SCRA 203, 208.
17.	As mandated by Administrative Circulars Nos. 1 dated January 28, 1988, 10-94 dated June 29, 1994; 17-94 dated November 14, 1994.
18.	Abarquez v. Rebosura, supra, pp. 120-121 citing: Agcaoili v. Ramos, etc., A.M. No. MTJ-92-6-251, February 7, 1994, 229 SCRA 705.
19.	Office of the Court Administrator v. Villanueva, 279 SCRA 267, 273.
20.	Lagatic v. Peñas, Jr., 276 SCRA 46, 53 citing: Tan v. Madayag, 231 SCRA 62 and Nidua v. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.