In Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-Branch 37, Lingayen, Pangasinan, the Supreme Court underscored the critical duty of judges to decide cases promptly, reinforcing that delayed justice is a denial of justice. The Court imposed a fine on Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer, now an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan, for failing to decide cases within the mandatory ninety-day period, despite prior reprimands for similar offenses. This ruling reaffirms the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional right to speedy trial and disposition of cases, ensuring public trust in the judicial system through accountability and diligence.

Lingayen Lament: When Unresolved Cases Cast a Shadow on Judicial Duty

This case arose from a judicial audit conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 37, Lingayen, Pangasinan, presided over by Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer. The audit revealed significant delays in case resolutions, with twenty-nine (29) cases undecided beyond the mandatory ninety-day period. Further investigation revealed that Judge Ferrer had been previously reprimanded twice for similar failures to decide cases promptly. The audit team also noted issues with court staff punctuality. These findings prompted the Supreme Court to require Judge Ferrer to explain why administrative action should not be taken against him.

In his defense, Judge Ferrer cited the absence of a Branch Clerk of Court for over a year as a contributing factor to his failure to monitor the aging of cases. He admitted negligence but pleaded for excusable consideration, pointing to his inability to receive his salary as an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan as sufficient punishment. The Supreme Court found Judge Ferrer’s excuses unconvincing, emphasizing the critical importance of timely case resolution in maintaining public trust in the judiciary. As the Court stated, “This Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, for it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency.”

Building on this principle, the Court highlighted a judge’s responsibility to maintain a system for tracking cases submitted for decision. “A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or resolution and is expected to keep his own record of cases so that he may act on them promptly.” This expectation is further reinforced by Supreme Court Circulars requiring judges to list cases submitted for decision in their quarterly reports and on the court’s bulletin board.

The Court dismissed Judge Ferrer’s excuse regarding the absence of a Branch Clerk of Court, stating it was his duty to request an immediate appointment. The Court stressed that, as a judge, he was responsible for keeping track of cases awaiting decision. The Supreme Court was emphatic in its view, stating that, “The excuses are bankrupt and pharisaical, as they are puerile. It was Judge Ferrer’s duty to recommend to the Supreme Court the immediate appointment of a Branch Clerk of Court. As judge, he was duty bound to personally keep a tabulation of cases submitted for decision. With more reason, Judge Ferrer was executive judge, and must be an example of rectitude in his actions. The designation as executive judge is a recognition of his leadership qualities but does not excuse him from complying with his constitutional duty to decide cases within the prescribed period from submission for decision.”

The Supreme Court made reference to the principle of good faith, and its limitations in exculpating judges from incompetence. “The claim of good faith and absence ‘of malice in these glaring instances of incompetence and ineptitude do not abate his consequent liability. For good faith and lack of malicious intent cannot completely free respondent judge from liability”. This underscores the Court’s view that even without malicious intent, a judge’s failure to fulfill their duties has consequences.

The Supreme Court then looked to the Canons of Judicial Ethics in determining the liability of the judge. Quoting from the Canons, the Court stated, “Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 admonishes all judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the period fixed by law. It is the duty of the judge to take note of the cases submitted to him for decision and see to it that the same is decided within the 90-day period fixed by law, and failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency.” In this light, failure to decide cases in a timely manner is a failure of their sworn duty.

The Court then stated, “Respondent Judge, as well as all other judges, must be reminded that a case should be decided within 90 days from its submission, otherwise, the judge would be guilty of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. Failure to render a decision within the ninety (90)-day period from its submission constitutes serious misconduct to the detriment of the honor and integrity of his office and in derogation of a speedy administration of justice.” This is a reminder to all judges to observe the rules and guidelines of case resolution.

The Supreme Court has consistently considered the failure of a judge to decide a case within ninety (90) days as gross inefficiency. The penalty imposed varies in each case, from fine, suspension, suspension and fine, and even dismissal, depending chiefly on the number of cases left undecided within the reglementary period and other factors, such as the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge. As this case shows, previous violations of the rules are considered when deciding the penalty for a judge.

The Court weighed the factors in the case, with this pronouncement: “Decision-making, among other duties, is the primordial and most important duty of a member of the bench. The speedy disposition of cases in our courts is a primary aim of the judiciary so the ends of justice may not be compromised and the judiciary will be true to its commitment to provide litigants their constitutional right to a speedy trial and a speedy disposition of their cases.” In this way, the Court made clear the importance of the rules and guidelines that judges must abide by.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Nicodemo T. Ferrer should be held administratively liable for failing to decide cases within the mandatory 90-day period. The Supreme Court addressed the judge’s negligence and inefficiency in managing his caseload.
What was the Supreme Court’s ruling?	The Supreme Court found Judge Ferrer administratively liable and imposed a fine of P20,000.00. The Court also admonished him to be more diligent in performing his duties, especially given his position as an Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan.
Why did the Court reject Judge Ferrer’s excuses?	The Court found his reasons—lack of a Branch Clerk of Court and reliance on a legal researcher—unconvincing. The Court emphasized that it was Judge Ferrer’s responsibility to request a clerk and to personally monitor the status of cases submitted for decision.
What is the significance of the 90-day rule?	The 90-day rule mandates that judges must decide cases within 90 days from submission to ensure speedy justice. Failure to comply constitutes gross inefficiency and can lead to administrative sanctions.
What factors does the Court consider in determining penalties for delayed decisions?	The Court considers the number of cases left undecided, the damage to parties due to the delay, the judge’s health and age, and prior offenses. Penalties range from fines to suspension or even dismissal.
What duty does a judge have in managing court records?	A judge must maintain a system for tracking cases submitted for decision. This includes keeping personal records and complying with Supreme Court Circulars requiring quarterly reports and public postings of pending cases.
Does good faith excuse a judge from liability for delayed decisions?	No, good faith and lack of malicious intent do not excuse a judge from liability for incompetence or inefficiency. Judges are expected to fulfill their duties regardless of their subjective intentions.
What is the constitutional basis for the Court’s emphasis on speedy justice?	The 1987 Constitution guarantees the right to a speedy trial (Article III, Section 14(2)) and a speedy disposition of cases (Article III, Section 16). These provisions underscore the importance of timely case resolution.

The Supreme Court’s decision in Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-Branch 37, Lingayen, Pangasinan, serves as a potent reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the constitutional right to speedy justice. By holding judges accountable for delays and inefficiencies, the Court reinforces the importance of diligence, competence, and a robust system of record management in maintaining public trust and ensuring the fair administration of justice.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: RE: REPORT ON THE JUDICIAL AUDIT CONDUCTED IN THE RTC-BRANCH 37, LINGAYEN, PANGASINAN., A.M. No. 99-11-470-RTC, July 24, 2000