[A.M.
No. 00-8-05-SC. September 10, 2002]
RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE
SANDIGANBAYAN
EN BANC
Gentlemen:
Quoted
hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 10 SEPT 2002.
A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC (Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the
Sandiganbayan.)
In our Resolution en banc dated August 13, 2002, we resolved to:
“1. REQUIRE
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena:
to
show cause within ten (10) days from receipt of copy of herein Resolution why
no disciplinary action or other administrative sanction should not be taken
against him for failure to submit: (a) the list of cases submitted for decision
that are still pending with him including those that were “unassigned,
unaccounted for or unreported”; and (b) copies of the decisions listed in his
Compliance dated July 18, 2002;
2. REQUIRE
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena:
a. to explain why the Resolutions and
Decisions enumerated in his Compliance were not promulgated immediately upon
release thereof; and
b. to explain why Criminal Case No. 25494
(People v. Vernette Umali-Paco), Civil Case No. 0023 (Republic v. Luz Bakunawa)
and Criminal Case No. 26018 (People v. Eric Labrador, et al.) which are not in
the list of undecided cases assigned to him per the Compliance Report of OCA
Consultant Pedro A. Ramirez, dated January 26, 2001, were decided by him ahead
of and giving precedence over the unresolved cases that were submitted for
decision as early as 1990 up to 1999, and directed by this Court to be decided
by him in our Resolution en banc
dated November 28, 2001 within six (6) months from November 29, 2001;
both within ten (10) days from
receipt of copy of herein Resolution, under pain of contempt of court;
3. GRANT movant Presiding Justice Garchitorena a non-extendible
period of extension up to September 30, 2002 within which to decide all the
unresolved cases submitted for decision as enumerated in the text of herein
Resolution, with a stern warning that proper disciplinary action will be taken
against him if he fails to do so.”
Presiding Justice Garchitorena submitted the following:
1. Manifestation and Compliance dated
August 15, 2002, received by this Court on August 20, 2002;
2. Urgent Manifestation and Supplement
Compliance dated August 22, 2002 and received by this Court on the same date;
3. Compliance dated August 23, 2002 and
received by this Court on the same date.
As to item no. I of the Resolution, PJ Garchitorena admits in his Manifestation and Compliance that he failed to submit the list of cases submitted for decision that were “Unassigned, Unaccounted for or Unreported” and apologizes therefor. He attached thereto a list of unassigned cases submitted for decision numbering 37. Said list tallies with the number of cases that have not yet been decided by him as of the date of our Resolution dated August 13, 2002. However, we noted a discrepancy between the date submitted for decision as reported by Justice Ramirez and those reported by PJ Garchitorena as follows:
Date
Submitted for Decision
Case Number Reported
by OCA Reported by PJ
Garchitorena
1. 17001 September
4, 1997 November 26, 1997
2. 17600 August
30, 1997 April 7, 1998
3. 17601 August
30, 1997 April 7, 1998
4. 18696 August
9, 1998 January 15, 1999
5. 18857 October
21, 1998 November 17, 1998
6. 19059-63 February
11, 1999 February 18, 1999
7. 19534-35 September
2, 1998 October 20, 1998
8. 19708 August
25, 1998 February 23, 1998
9. 19773-79 May
21, 1999 October 11,
1999
10. 20688 July
9, 1998 October 19,
1998
11. 22145 July
7, 1999 September
6, 1999
12. 22832 October
21, 1998 January 29, 1999
13. 23146 November
13, 2000 April 30, 2001
14. 23509 September
5, 1998 October
19, 1998
15. 23511 April
23, 1999 August 6,
1999
16. 24150 January
31, 2000 June 2, 2000
17. 24236-37 February
14, 2000 March 16, 2000
18. 24281 May
9, 1999 August 31,
1999
19. 24319-29 November
4, 1999 January 6, 2000
20. 24355 February
18, 1999 August 18, 1999
21. 24402 June
17, 1999 August
6, 1999
22. 24433-34 September
6, 1999 October 11, 1999
23. 24531-34 December
16, 1999 April 27, 2000
24. 24631 August
9, 1999 August 31, 1999
25. 24768 July
8, 2000 February
27, 2001
PJ Garchitorena failed to include in the list he submitted the following
cases that have been assigned to him and appeared in the Report of Justice
Ramirez:
1. 6672 July
11, 1990
2. 11999 December
19, 1990
3. 13015 July
1, 1991
4. 13563 July
4, 1995
The Court notes that there are 11 unassigned cases that were not listed
in the report of Justice Ramirez which PJ Garchitorena now reports as pending
decision:
1. 21851 May
17, 2001
2. 23128-29 August
20, 2001
3. 23596 October
2, 2001
4. 24701 June
29, 2001
5. 24859-60 October
2, 2001
6. 25107 May
8, 2001
7. 25190 February
26, 2001
8. 25778 April
30, 2001
9. 23609-23611 October 23, 2001
10. 23614 October
23, 2001
11. 24414-24415 October 23, 2001
Moreover, there are “unaccounted or unreported” cases in the list of the
report of Justice Ramirez which are not in the list submitted by PJ
Garchitorena, thus:
1. 0112 January
11, 1992
2. 0116 October
15, 1991
3. 0156 March
14, 1997
4. 24339 October
20, 2000
As to his failure to submit copies of decision listed in his Compliance
dated July 18, 2002, he alleges in his Compliance dated August 23, 2002 that he
sent two (2) folders together with his Compliance dated July 18, 2002, one for
resolutions and one for decisions; that according to process server Alexander
Valencia of Sandiganbayan, he served both copies with the Docket and Clearance
Division, Office of the Court Administrator, on the same date.
As to item no. 2.a of the Resolution - PJ Garchitorena explains that the
“date of release” in the tabulations submitted by him refers to the release of
the decision from his office for concurrence or dissent by the other members of
the Division, that the “dates of release” indicate when he accomplished his
task on the item not its release for promulgation by the Division Clerk of
Court to the parties or promulgation of the decision in open court; that the
promulgation of the resolution takes place soon after the transmittal thereof
by the Acting Chairman to the Division Clerk of Court after the members have
expressed themselves on it; that he “is totally out of the information loop
with respect to the promulgation of the
resolution or of the decisions”.
As to item no. 2.b of the Resolution - PJ Garchitorena gave the
following explanations:
“1. The undersigned respectfully states that,
indeed, he did not follow any specific order in the rendition of decisions.
While the decisions rendered were more or less co-incidental with these in the
list of Justice Ramirez, the drafting of the decisions were not guided by any
specific preference. The Resolution of November 28, 2001 did not ordain a
sequence to be followed. Thus, there were some drafts which could no longer be
worked on in the present computer (since the programs had been changed and the
drafts were inaccessible); there were cases where drafts were more elaborate,
while other were more straightforward so that the review, as well as the
redrafting thereof by the undersigned was easier and these Were completed more
quickly. Thus, these latter type would come out earlier.
“2. Some drafts were ready when the resolution
of November 28, 2001 was promulgated so that these were released in December
and in January of 2002 (despite the Christmas holidays and the Motion for
Reconsideration which the undersigned had to, and did in fact, prepare With
respect to this Honorable Court’s Resolution of November, 2001).
“3. Additionally, as the undersigned mentioned
in his Clarification and Motion for Reconsideration dated December 21, 200 1,
the cases had already been distributed among the members of this Division even
before the Resolution of November 28, 2001 so that work on those attributed
to the undersigned at that time were attended to also.
“4. Certain decision referred to cases not
in the list of Justice Ramirez, it is true. These were earlier covered by a
demurrer to evidence such as the case of People vs. Umali-Paco (Criminal Case
No. 25494), and by a motion to dismiss, such as the case of Bakunawa (Civil
Case No. 0023). They were treated on the assumption, as previously stated, of
general responsibility of the undersigned for matters pending before November
28, 2001. There is no specific reason for the case of People vs. Eric Labrador
(Criminal Case No. 26018), except that the draft therein was ready and was
reviewed and cleaned up by the undersigned more easily.
“(The
undersigned begs to inform this Honorable Court that the undersigned has two
assistants, one on loan to him and another a new member of the bar on temporary
assignment to him. The cases have been divided between them and the drafts
submitted by them undergo various degrees of revision depending upon how well
the drafts were presented.)”*
As to Item No. 3 of the Resolution - PJ Garchitorena prays that the
deadline fixed for September 30, 2002 be extended taking into consideration the
following facts which have intervened in the preparation of the decisions:
a) He was made part of the Philippine
delegation to a, training course on case, flow management in Japan from June 3
to June 24, 2002;
b) He underwent a foot surgery on January
24, 2002 and on July 25, 2002 for which he was in crutches for about two (2)
weeks of which he has not yet fully recovered;
c) His continuing indisposition, as well as
the rains in July, which resulted in periodic absences of. some of his staff
who were flooded in. They were assisting him in the typing, drafting and
research work in depending matters. It has only been in early August when the
weather improved that his office was fully operational again;
d) He had spent time in the 18 resolutions
Which he assumed he should have attended to but Which under the resolution of
the Court En Banc dated August 2, 2002 in G.R. Nos. 147062-64* turned out that he should devote
himself exclusively to decision writing as directed in A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC
dated November 28, 2001;
e) Technically, the six (6) months period
should have been reckoned from January 21, 2002 the date that his Motion for
Reconsideration was denied by the Court instead of November 28, 2001.
In view of all the foregoing, we resolve to:
1.
DIRECT the Division Clerk of Court of the Sandiganbayan to confirm
the date of promulgation of the decisions penned by PJ Garchitorena as
appearing on the list appended to the folder of decisions submitted by him in
connection with his Compliance dated August 23, 2002, a copy of which is hereto
attached for easy reference, within a period of five (5) days from notice
hereof.
2.
Note the folder of copies of decision submitted by PJ
Garchitorena;
3.
Note the explanation of PJ Garchitorena as to the
discrepancy in the date of release date of promulgation appearing in his tabulation;
4.
Consider the explanations of PJ Garchitorena to item no. 2.b
of the Resolution dated August 13, 2002 to be UNSATISFACTORY. He is admonished to give priority to the
cases that are included in the list of undecided cases assigned to him per the
Compliance Report of OCA Consultant Pedro A. Ramirez, dated January 26, 2001;
5.
REQUIRE PJ Garchitorena to submit, within five (5) days from
receipt of copy of herein Resolution, duly authenticated medical certificates
attesting to his surgeries in January and July, 2002.
6.
Deny PJ Garchitorena’s proposal of recomputation of the
6-month period within which to decide all the pending cases assigned to him.
The Resolution of August 13, 2002 giving a non-extendible period up to
September 30, 2002 is MAINTAINED;
otherwise, more severe disciplinary action will be taken against him.
Sandoval-Gutierrez, J., is on leave.
Very truly yours,
Clerk of Court