EN BANC
[A.M. No. 99-7-250-RTC. April 5,
2000]
CASES
SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE RETIRED JUDGE MAXIMO A. SAVELLANO, JR. RTC-
BRANCH 53, MANILA.
R E S O L U T I O N
BUENA, J.:
This administrative matter arose as a result
of, among others, the non-resolution within the reglementary period of several
criminal and civil cases before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 53
then presided by Executive Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr.
As borne by the records, the antecedent of
the instant administrative matter are as follows:
On 14 March 1999, Judge Maximo A. Savellano,
Jr. compulsorily retired from the judicial service. As required, Judge
Savellano rendered Monthly Reports of Cases in Branch 53, the last of which was
for the month of November 1998. In the Monthly Report, no entry was made in the
space reserved for cases submitted for decision[1]
Subsequently, Lawyer Froilan S. Dayco, Clerk
of Court of Branch 53, submitted to the Court Management Office, Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA), a list of cases "reportedly long submitted for
decision before Judge Savellano, but which were only recently decided by the
latter." Additionally, Clerk of Court Dayco submitted a separate list of
unresolved cases by Judge Savellano allegedly due to non-submission of the
memoranda by the parties, as required by the court.
On the basis of the status report submitted
by Clerk of Court Froilan Dayco, the OCA, in a memorandum dated 09 July 1999,
gathered the following observations, to wit:
"a) In six
(6) cases[2], Judge Savellano Issued subsequent orders near his
retirement date extending the period given to the parties to submit memorandum
although there was a marked non-compliance for an unreasonable period;
b) There were four
(4) cases[3] which were left unresolved/undecided by Judge
Savellano despite the lapse of an unreasonable length of time.
c) There were ten
(10) cases[4] (Four criminal cases and six civil cases) which were
decided by Judge Savellano after a lapse of the 90 day reglementary period to
decide.
Curiously, the
1998 Monthly Reports of Branch 53 (January-November '98) made a scant mention
of only six (6) of these cases:
Criminal Case Nos.
90-82501-02; 94-132490 appeared in the January '98 Reports of Cases; Civil Case
Nos. 94-70515; 94-70807; 93-64694; 91-57048 reflected in the May '98 Report of
Cases."
In an En Banc Resolution dated 03 August
1999, this Court resolved among others to require Judge Savellano and Clerk of
Court Froilan Dayco to explain within ten (10) days the improper reporting of
nine (9) civil cases[5] and ten (10) criminal cases[6] in the Monthly Reports of Cases of RTC-Manila,
Branch 53.
Further, in the same resolution, this Court
required Judge Savellano to explain his possible violation of Administrative
Circular No. 28, dated 03 July 1989, as a result of the handling of certain
civil[7] and criminal[8] cases and for having decided several cases[9] beyond the 90-day reglementary period provided by
the Constitution.
In an Explanation dated 14 August 1999,
Judge Savellan invoking Article VII, Section 15 (2) of the Constitution,
posited that the subject cases were not yet submitted for decision inasmuch as
the parties had yet to submit their respective memoranda, as required and
ordered by the court. According to Judge Savellano, he "awaited the filing
of the required memoranda and even issued subsequent orders giving (the
parties) additional time to do so in order to enlighten the court on issues to
be raised and discussed by them, but they failed to do so[10]".
Moreover, Judge Savellano submitted that
"every case has its own peculiar facts and circumstances necessitating
clear and lucid discussions thereof in the required memoranda.[11]"
Notwithstanding, Judge Savellano averred
that in many instances, he decided cases pending before his court even in the
absence of the required memoranda based on "personal notes taken by him
during the trial."
Further, Judge SavelIano explained that as
an Executive Judge who concurrently handled a special criminal court, he was
burdened with additional duties that affected the speedy disposition and
resolution of cases before his court.
In a Memorandum dated 24 January 2000, the
OCA recommended that a fine of P15,000.00 be imposed on Judge Savellano, on the
ground of undue delay in rendering decisions in the subject cases and for
violation of Supreme Court rules, directives and circulars.
Except for the amount of the fine which the
Court finds too high, the recommendation of the OCA is well-taken.
On this score, Administrative Circular
No.28, dated 03 July 1989 finds pertinence, thus:
"1) As a
general rule, the submission of memoranda is not mandatory or required as a
matter of course but shall be left to the sound discretion of the court. A memo
may not be filed unless require or allowed by the court. X X X.
XXX XXX XXX
3) A case is
considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence of the
parties at the termination of the trial. The ninety (90) day period for
deciding the case shall commence to run from submission of the case for
decision without memoranda; In case the Court requires or allows its filing,
the case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last
memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier X X
X.
4) The court may
grant extension of time to file memoranda, but the ninety (90) day period
for deciding the case shall not be interrupted thereby.
In light of these clear provisions, the
proffered explanation of Judge Savellano, as to the delay in the resolution of the
subject cases and rendition of judgement thereon, loses persuasion and fails to
absolve him from administrative liability.
Verily, judges should decide cases even if
the parties fail to submit memoranda within the given periods. Non- submission
of memoranda is not a part of the trial nor is the memorandum itself an
essential, much less indispensable pleading before a case may be submitted for
decision. As it is merely intended to aid the court in the rendition of the
decision in accordance with law and evidence–which even in its absence the
court can do on the basis of the judge's personal notes and the records of the
case-non-submission thereof has invariably been considered a waiver of the
privilege.[12]
Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and
decide cases within the periods fixed by law[13], that is three (3) months from the filing of the
last pleading, brief or memorandum.[14] For delay in the disposition of cases erodes faith and
confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it
into disrepute.[15]
Beyond this, Judge Savellano, in his
Explanation admitted that in several instances, he resolved cases and rendered
judgement thereon utilizing personal notes transcribed in the course of trial,
regardless of the lack of required memoranda from the parties.
In addition, although this Court is aware
and considered the fact at the time of his retirement, Judge Savellano acted
concurrently as an Executive Judge and a judge of a Special Criminal Court, we
must reiterate nonetheless that the designation as an Executive Judge is a
privilege and a form of recognition of his leadership qualities, and does not
excuse him from complying with his constitutional duty to decide cases within
ninety (90) days from the time they were deemed submitted for decision.[16]
Analogously, in a recent pronouncement[17], we invariably held that being designated Acting
Presiding Judge of two other salas is insufficient reason to justify delay in
deciding a case since the judge could have asked for an extension of the period
within which to decide it.
The standing rule then is that the
ninety-day period for deciding cases should be observed by all judges, unless
they have been granted additional time.[18] Judges when burdened by heavy caseloads which
prevent them from disposing their cases within the reglementary period may,
with leave of this Court, ask for additional time.
After all, it is not uncommon for the
Supreme Court, upon proper application and in meritorious cases, especially
when difficult questions of law or complex issues are involved, to grant judges
of lower courts additional time to decide beyond the ninety-day period.[19]
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds Judge Maximo
A. Savellano, Jr., liable for undue delay in the rendition of judgement and for
violating Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 28 and Canon 3, Rule 3.05
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
ACCORDINGLY, this Court hereby imposes upon him a fine of P5,000.00
to be deducted from the amount of P30,000.00 already set aside from his
retirement benefits, to answer for any liability for which he may be held
accountable.
THEREUPON, the Financial Management Office, OCA is hereby
directed to release with dispatch the remaining P25,000.00 to Judge Savellano.
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo,
Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Purisima, Pardo,
Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, and
De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.
[1] Memorandum of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, dated 09 July 1999.
[2] Civil Case Nos. 93-64694; 96-77866; 91-57048; Criminal Case Nos. 92-111825; 94-137245; 94-69609.
[3] Criminal Case Nos. 90-82501; 94-132490; 94-137350; 94-137045.
[4] Criminal Case Nos. 96-150718; 95-146046; 90-86036; 95-142174-5; Civil Case Nos. 82-13979; 93-64357; 97967; 94-70515; 95-70807; 87-39671.
[5] Civil Case Nos. 93-64694; 96-77866; 91-570-48; 82-139-79; 93-64357; 97967; 94-70515; 95-70807; 87-39671.
[6] Criminal Case Nos. 92-111825; 94-137045; 94-69609; 90-82501; 94-132490; 94-137350; 96-150718; 95-146046; 90-86036 and 95-142174-5.
[7] Civil Case Nos. 93-64694; 96-77866 and 91-57048.
[8] Criminal Case Nos. 92-111825, 94-137245; 94-69609.
[9] Criminal Case Nos. 96-150718; 95-146046; 90-86036; 95-142174-5; Civil Case Nos. 82-139-79; 93-64357; 97967; 94-70515; 95-70807; 87-39671.
[10] Explanation of Judge Maximo Savellano, Jr., p. 2.
[11] Ibid., p 3.
[12] Salvador vs. Salamanca, 144 SCRA 276.
[13] Re: Report of Justice Felipe B. Kalalo, 282 SCRA 61.
[14] Abarquez vs. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109.
[15] Ibid.
[16] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit, RTC, Branch 4 and 23, Manila 291 SCRA 10.
[17] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit of Cases in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 35, Iriga City, 299 SCRA 382.
[18] Sanchez vs. Vestil, 298 SCRA 1.
[19] Lambino vs. De Vera, 275 SCRA 60.