Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURTManila EN BANC A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDI GANBAYAN R E S O L U T I O NPARDO, J.:The CaseSubmitted to the Court for consideration is a resolution of the Board of Governors, Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter, the IBP) recommending an inquiry into the causes of delays in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases pending before the Sandiganbayan. The AntecedentsOn July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim, transmitted to the Court a Resolution 1 addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan (hereafter, the Resolution). 2 We quote the Resolution in full: 3 "WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases be fore all judicial, quasi- judicial, or administrative bodies," "WHEREAS, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers mandates that "[a] lawyer shall exert eve ry effort and consider it his duty to assist in the speedy and efficient administration of justice;" "WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Integrated Ba r of the Philippines to un dertake measures to assist in the speedy disposition of cases pending before the various courts and tribunals; "WHEREAS, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has received numerous complaints from its members about serious d elays in the decision of cases and in
This document is posted to help you gain knowledge. Please leave a comment to let me know what you think about it! Share it to your friends and learn new things together.
Transcript
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN
R E S O L U T I O N
PARDO, J .:
The Case
Submitted to the Court for consideration is a resolution of the Board of Governors,Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter, the IBP) recommending an inquiry into thecauses of delays in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of casespending before the Sandiganbayan.
The Antecedents
On July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim, transmitted to theCourt a Resolution1addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before theSandiganbayan (hereafter, the Resolution).2 We quote the Resolution in full:3
"WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll personsshall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-
judicial, or administrative bodies,"
"WHEREAS, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyersmandates that "[a] lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in
the speedy and efficient administration of justice;"
"WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undertakemeasures to assist in the speedy disposition of cases pending before the variouscourts and tribunals;
"WHEREAS, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has received numerouscomplaints from its members about serious delays in the decision of cases and in
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan;
"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 requires all RegionalTrial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal CircuitTrial Courts to submit to the Supreme Court a bi-annual report indicating the title of the case, its date of filing, the date of pre-trial in civil cases and arraignment incriminal cases, the date of initial trial, the date of last hearing and the date that thecase is submitted for decision, and to post, in a conspicuous place within itspremises, a monthly list of cases submitted for decision;
"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not been madeapplicable to the Sandiganbayan;
"WHEREAS, considering that the Sandiganbayan is also a trial court, therequirements imposed upon trial courts by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 should also be imposed upon the Sandiganbayan;
"NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Board of Governors of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines hereby resolves as follows:
"1. To recommend to the Supreme Court that Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 be made applicable to the Sandiganbayan in regard cases over which theSandiganbayan has original jurisdiction; and
"2. To recommend to the Supreme Court an inquiry into the causes of delay in theresolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases before theSandiganbayan for the purpose of enacting measures intended at avoiding such
delays.
"Done in Los Baños, Laguna, this 29th day of July, 2000."
On August 8, 2000, the Court required Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E.Garchitorena to comment on the letter of the IBP and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayancases pending decision, or with motion for reconsideration pending resolution, indicating thedates they were deemed submitted for decision or resolution.4
On September 27, 2000, complying with the order, Presiding Justice Francis E.Garchitorena submitted a report5(hereafter, the compliance) admitting a number of casessubmitted for decision and motion for reconsideration pending resolution before itsdivisions. We quote:
"CasesSubmitted
"For Decision
W/ Motions For Reconsideration
"1st Division 341 None
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
Thus, the Sandiganbayan has a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases for decisionremaining undecided long beyond the reglementary period to decide, with one casesubmitted as early as May 24, 1990,7 and motion for reconsideration which has remainedunresolved over thirty days from submission.8
On October 20, 2000, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitteda "schedule of cases submitted for decision, the schedule indicating the number of detainedprisoners, of which there are (were) none."9
On October 26, 2000, the IBP submitted its reply to the compliance stating: Fir st , that it wasnot in a position to comment on the accuracy of the compliance; nonetheless, it showed thatthere was much to be desired with regard to the expeditious disposition of cases,particularly in the Sandiganbayan's First Division, where cases submitted for decision since1990 remained unresolved. Second , the compliance did not include pending motions, and itis a fact that motions not resolved over a long period of time would suspend and delay thedisposition of a case. Thir d , since the Sandiganbayan is a trial court, it is required to submitthe same reports required of Regional Trial Courts. F our th, the Constitution10states that, "alllower collegiate courts" must decide or resolve cases or matters before it within twelve (12)months "from date of submission"; however, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is requiredto resolve and decide cases within a reduced period of three (3) months like regional trialcourts, or at the most, six (6) months from date of submission.11
On November 21, 2000, the Court resolved to direct then Court Administrator Alfredo L.Benipayo (hereafter, the OCA) "to conduct a judicial audit of the Sandiganbayan, especiallyon the cases subject of this administrative matter, and to submit a report thereon not later than 31 December 2000."12
On December 4, 2000, in a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, Presiding Justice FrancisE. Garchitorena admitted that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan13 has a backlog of cases; that one case14 alone made the backlog of the First Division so large, involving 156cases but the same has been set for promulgation of decision on December 8, 2000, whichwould reduce the backlog by at least fifty percent (50%).15
On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum to theCourt16 stating that the causes of delay in the disposition of cases before theSandiganbayan are:17
(1) Failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation reportdespite the lapse of several years;
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
(2) Filing of numerous incidents such as Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Quash,Demurrer to Evidence, etc. that remain unresolved for years;
(3) Suspension of proceedings because of a pending petition for certiorari andprohibition with the Supreme Court;
(4) Cases remain unacted upon or have no further settings despite the lapse of considerable length of time; and
(5) Unloading of cases already submitted for decision even if the ponente is still inservice.
We consider ex mer o motu the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) asan administrative complaint against Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena for "seriousdelays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidentsbefore the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan," amounting to incompetence,inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and misconduct in office.
We find no need to conduct a formal investigation of the charges in view of the admission of Justice Francis E. Garchitorena in his compliance of October 20, 2000, that there areindeed hundreds of cases pending decision beyond the reglementary period of ninety (90)days from their submission. In one case, he not only admitted the delay in deciding the casebut took sole responsibility for such inaction for more than ten (10) years that constrainedthis Court to grant mandamus to dismiss the case against an accused to give substanceand meaning to his constitutional right to speedy trial.18
The Issues
The issues presented are the following: (1) What is the reglementary period within which theSandiganbayan must decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction? (2) Are there casessubmitted for decision remaining undecided by the Sandiganbayan or any of its divisionsbeyond the afore-stated reglementary period? (3) Is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the Sandiganbayan?19
The Cour t's Rul i ng
We resolve the issues presented i n seri at i m.
1. Peri od To Dec i de/Resolve Cases.-- There are two views. The first view is that from thetime a case is submitted for decision or resolution, the Sandiganbayan has twelve (12)months to decide or resolve it.20 The second view is that as a court with trial function, theSandiganbayan has three (3) months to decide the case from the date of submission for decision.21
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution provides:
"Sec. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must bedecided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission to the
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for alllower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
"(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon thefiling of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or bythe court itself."22
The above provision does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of
Appeals.23
The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals andpossessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice,24 with functions of a trial court.25
Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one.26 The Sandiganbayanwas originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure.27 However, on March30, 1995, Congress repealed the Sandiganbayan's power to promulgate its own rules of
procedure28 and instead prescribed that the Rules of Court promulgated by the SupremeCourt shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan.29
"Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized categories of actions. They are the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,and the Shari'a Courts."30
Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution "Rules of procedure of spec i al cour ts andquasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."
In his report, the Court Administrator would distinguish between cases which the
Sandiganbayan has cognizance of in its original jurisdiction,31
and cases which fall withinthe appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.32 The Court Administrator posits that sincein the first class of cases, the Sandiganbayan acts more as a trial court, then for thatclassification of cases, the three (3) month reglementary period applies. For the secondclass of cases, the Sandiganbayan has the twelve-month reglementary period for collegiatecourts.33 We do not agree.
The law creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 160634 is clear on this issue.35 It provides:
"Sec. 6. Max i mum peri od for ter mi nat i on of cases ± As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous untilterminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the datethe case was submitted for decision."
On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules,36 thus:37
"Sec. 3 Max i mum Peri od to Dec i de Cases ± The judgment or final order of a divisionof the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered w i thi n thr ee (3) months f r om the date thecase was submi tted for dec i si on (italics ours)."
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3) monthperiod, not the twelve (12) month period, to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan.Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan presently sitting in five (5) divisions,38 functions as a trialcourt. The term "trial" is used in its broad sense, meaning, it allows introduction of evidenceby the parties in the cases before it.39 The Sandiganbayan, in original cases within its
jurisdiction, conducts trials, has the discretion to weigh the evidence of the parties, admitthe evidence it regards as credible and reject that which they consider perjurious or fabricated.40
Compl i ance w i th i ts Own Rules
In Depar tment of Ag r ari an Refor m Adjud i cat i on Boar d (DARAB) v. Cour t of Appeals,41 theCourt faulted the DARAB for violating its own rules of procedure. We reasoned that theDARAB does not have unfettered discretion to suspend its own rules. We stated that theDARAB "should have set the example of observance of orderly procedure." Otherwise, itwould render its own Revised Rules of Procedure uncertain and whose permanence wouldbe dependent upon the instability of its own whims and caprices.
Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec ,42 this Court held that the Commission on Elections oughtto be the first one to observe its own Rules. Its departure from its own rules constitutes"arrogance of power" tantamount to abuse. Such inconsistency denigrates public trust in itsobjectivity and dependability. The Court reminded the Comelec to be more judicious in itsactions and decisions and avoid imprudent volte-face moves that undermine the public'sfaith and confidence in it.
The r at i o dec i dend i in the afore-cited cases applies mutatis mutandis to the Sandiganbayan.The Sandiganbayan ought to be the first to observe its own rules. It cannot suspend itsrules, or except a case from its operation.
2. U ndec i ded Cases Beyond the Reglementar y Peri od .-- We find that the Sandiganbayanhas several cases undecided beyond the reglementary period set by the statutes and itsown rules, some as long as more than ten (10) years ago.
According to the compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan, three hundred and forty one(341) cases were submitted for decision but were undecided as of September 15, 2000. Anumber of the cases were submitted for decision as far back as mor e than ten (10) year sago. As of September 15, 2000, the following cases43 had not been decided:44
First Division
Case Title Case No. Date Submittedfor Decision
(1) People v. Pañares 12127 May 24, 1990
(2) People v. Gabriel Duero 11999 December 11,1990
(3) People v. Rhiza Monterozo 133533 December 14,1990
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
(23) People v. Enrique Sy, et al. 20487 December 17,1998
(24) People v. PO2 Manuel L. Bien 20648-20649 March 31, 1998
(25) People v. Felipe L. Laodenio 23066 September 28,1999
(26) People v. Mayor Walfrido A.Siasico
23427 January 16, 1998
The Sandiganbayan is a special court created "in an effort to maintain honesty andefficiency in the bureaucracy, weed out misfits and undesirables in the government andeventually stamp out graft and corruption."45 We have held consistently that a delay of three(3) years in deciding a si ngle case is inexcusably long.46 We can not accept the excuses of Presiding Justice Sandiganbayan Francis E. Garchitorena that the court was reorganized in1997; that the new justices had to undergo an orientation and that the Sandiganbayanrelocated to its present premises which required the packing and crating of records; andthat some boxes were still unopened.47
We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena's excuse that one case
alone48 comprises more that fifty percent (50%) of the First Division's backlog and that thesame has been set for promulgation on December 8, 2000.49 As we said, a delay in a si nglecase cannot be tolerated, " par a muest r a, basta un boton." (for an example, one buttonsuffices). It is admitted that there are several other cases submitted for decision as far backas ten (10) years ago that have remained undecided by the First Division, of which JusticeGarchitorena is presiding justice and chairman. Indeed, there is even one case, which is asimple motion to withdraw the information filed by the prosecutor. This has remainedunresolved for more than seven (7) years (since 1994).50 The compliance submitted by theSandiganbayan presiding justice incriminates him. The memorandum submitted by theCourt Administrator likewise testifies to the unacceptable situation in the Sandiganbayan.Indeed, there is a disparity in the reports submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice
and the OCA. According to the Court Administrator, the cases submitted for decision thatwere still pending promulgation51 before the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are:52
First Division
Case Number Date Submitted Case Number Date Submitted
1. 11156 8/9/91 99. 23336 9/4/97
2. 11157 8/9/91 100. 23374 12/17/98
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
We find that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena failed to devise an efficient recordingand filing system to enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedyand timely disposition. This is his duty on which he failed.53
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
On November 14, 2001, the Court required the Office of the Court Administrator 54 to updateits report.55
On November 16, 2001, OCA Consultant Pedro A. Ramirez (Justice, Court of Appeals,Retired) submitted a "compliance report" with the Court's order. The compliance reportshows that to this day, several cases that were reported pending by the Sandiganbayan onSeptember 26, 2000, and likewise reported undecided by the OCA on January 26, 2001,have not been decided/resolved. We quote the compliance report:56
First Division
Case Number DateSubmitted
Ponente Assigned
Reason for NotDeciding Case
194. 11999 12/10/90 Garchitorena Under study,submitted before the
reorganization195. 12102 7/1/91 Garchitorena Under study,
submitted before thereorganization
196. 12127 2/12/90 Not reported; unaccounted for bySandiganbayan report
197. 12139 6/10/92 Castaneda* Under studysubmitted before thereorganization
198. 12289 8/28/91 Castaneda Under study
submitted before thereorganization
199. 12305-06 2/7/91 Castaneda Under studysubmitted before thereorganization
200. 13015 3/2/92 Garchitorena Under studysubmitted before thereorganization
201. 13171 11/16/95 Castaneda Under studysubmitted before thereorganization
202. 13353 10/6/90 Garchitorena Under studysubmitted before thereorganization
203. 13521 12/12/99 Garchitorena Under studysubmitted before thereorganization
204. 13563 7/4/95 Garchitorena Under study
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
52. 18867-72 10/5/00 Pending trial per order dated 08/17/00
53. 19182 4/6/00 Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97
54. 19563 4/6/00 No Assignment --55. 19574 4/6/00 No Assignment --
56. 19622-24 4/6/00 Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97
57. 20053-54 4/6/00 Not with the 3rd Division
58. 20271 12/18/00 Illarde --
59. 22143 12/18/00 De Castro --
60. 23014 9/23/00 De Castro --
61. 23699-701 3/22/00 Ilarde --
62. 23802-03 9/10/00 No Assignment --
63. 24153 12/18/00 No Assignment --
64. 24697-98 9/10/00 Ilarde --
65. 24741 12/7/00 De Castro --
66. 24779-81 10/28/00 No Assignment --
67. 25657 5/5/00 With Defense pending motion for there-examination of the Information andthe parties' affidavits, etc. Order dated08/31/01
Summar y/Tally
Cases Assigned to Illarde, J. 9
Cases Assigned to DeCastro, J.
4
Cases not yet assigned 8
Others 18
Total 39
Fourth Division**
Case Number DateSubmitted
Ponente Assigned
Reason for NotDeciding Case
71. 11960 09/21/98 Draft of decision penned by J. Nario inview of the dissenting opinion of oneJustice was referred to a Division of five (5) composed of Nario, Palattao,Ferrer, Badoy, Jr. and De Castro, JJ.
72. 16809 03/26/00 Palattao --
73. 23058-62 04/27/00 Nario --
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
3. Appl i cabi l i ty of SC Adm. C ir cular No. 10-94.-- Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 appliesto the Sandiganbayan.
Administrative Circular 10-9457 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of thecases in their dockets. The docket inventory procedure is as follows:58
"a. Every trial judge shall submit not later than the last week of February and the lastweek of August of each year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate ona horizontal column the following data:
"1. Title of the case
"2. Date of Filing
"3. Date arraignment in criminal cases of Pre-trial in civil cases and
"4. Date of initial trial
"5. Date of last hearing
"6. Date submitted for Decision
"b. The tabulation shall end with a certification by the trial judge that he/she haspersonally undertaken an inventory of the pending cases in his/her court; that he/shehas examined each case record and initialled the last page thereof. The judge shallindicate in his/her certification the date when inventory was conducted.
"c. The Tabulation and Certification shall be in the following form.
Docket Inventory for the Period
January __ to June ___, ___/July
To December ___, ___
(Indicate Period)
Court and Station ________
Presiding Judge ________
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
"I hereby certify that on (Date/Dates___), I personally conducted a physical inventoryof pending cases in the docket of this court, that I personally examined the recordsof each case and initialled the last page thereof, and I certify that the results of theinventory are correctly reflected in the above tabulation.
_________. _______________Presiding Judge"
Given the rationale behind the Administrative Circular, we hold that it is applicable to the
Sandiganbayan with respect to cases within its original and appellate jurisdiction.
Mor a Dec i dend i
We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000:59
"This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) todecide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is
justice denied. Dec i si on mak i ng i s the pri mor d i al and most i mpor tant duty of themember of the bench.60 Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch.Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency61 that warrants disciplinary
sanction, including fine,
62
suspension
63
and even dismissal.
64
Ther ule pa
r t i cula
r ly appl i es to just i ces of the Sand i ganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode
the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bringit into disrepute.65 Delays cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the anti-graft court, the showcase of the nation's determination to succeed in its war againstgraft (italics ours)."
In Yuchengco v. Republ i c ,66 we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice.We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and control itsprocesses and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan asthe nation's anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for graft, uphold the rightof all persons to a speedy disposition of their cases and avert the precipitate loss of their
rights.
Practice of Unloading Cases
According to the memorandum submitted by the OCA, there is a practice in the first andthird divisions of the Sandiganbayan of unloading cases to other divisions despite the factthat these cases have been submitted for decision before them. We cite relevant portions of the memorandum:67
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
We suggest a review of the practice of unloading cases that greatly contributes to thebacklog of undecided cases. When a case has been heard and tried before a division of theSandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same division and no other must decide it as far aspracticable.
We further note that several cases which were earlier reported as undecided by theSandiganbayan and the OCA have been decided since the reports of September 26, 2000and January 26, 2001. Nonetheless, the delay in deciding these cases is patent and meritsreprobation. According to the compliance report submitted by the OCA on November 16,2001, there are several cases decided way beyond the reglementary period prescribed by
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
law, even assuming without granting, a reglementary period of twelve months from the timea case is submitted for decision.68
In a case brought before this Court, Presiding Justice Garchitorena admitted fault and thatthe fault is exclusively his own, in failing to decide the case, though submitted for decisionas early as June 20, 1990.69 This case was not even included among pending cases in theSandiganbayan report of September 26, 2000.
The following cases were decided, though beyond the prescribed period:
Fir st Di v i si on
Case Number Submi tted for
Dec i si on Date of
P r omulgat i on Ponente
14195 March 31, 1997November 10,
2000Ong
21608 March 31, 1997
November 15,
2000 Ong
20588 February 14, 1998 January 12, 2001 Ong
19651 November 15, 1996 January 26, 2001 Ong
17670 November 25, 1994 January 26, 2001 Ong
17447-48 September 6, 1994February 22,
2001Ong
18283 February 21, 1995February 23,
2001Ong
17514 August 19, 1994 April 24, 2001 Ong
Second Di v i si on
Case Number Submi tted for
Dec i si on Date of
P r omulgat i on Ponente
18403-18417 December 4, 1998 February 2, 2001 Victorino
18435 August 11, 2000 March 26, 2001 Victorino
18786 November 28, 2000 March 28, 2001 Legaspi
19004September 10,
1996March 16, 2001 Victorino
19692-19707 August 27, 2000February 26,
2001
Sandoval
19848 March 28, 1996 January 29, 2001 Victorino
20483-20484 July 26, 1995 April 6, 2001 Victorino
20660 December 20, 2000 August 2, 2001 Legaspi
20765 August 30, 1996February 23,
2001Victorino
20816 March 11, 1998 January 25, 2001 Victorino
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
At this juncture, the Court cites the case of Canson v. Gar chi tor ena.70 In that case, weadmonished respondent Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena. General Jewel F.Canson, Police Chief Superintendent, National Capital Region Command Director,complained of deliberate delayed action of the Presiding Justice on the transfer of CriminalCases Nos. 23047-23057 to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, depriving complainantof his right to a just and speedy trial. Due to a finding of lack of bad faith on the part of respondent justice, we issued only a warning. However, the dispositive portion of thedecision cautioned respondent justice that "a repetition of the same or similar act in thefuture shall be dealt with more severely."71
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena sits as the Chairman, First Division, with abacklog of cases pending decision. At least seventy-three cases have been unassigned for the writing of the extended opinion, though submitted for decision. It may be the thinking of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan that an unassigned case is not counted in its backlogof undecided cases. This is not correct. It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and theChairmen of divisions to assign the ponente as soon as the case is declared submitted for
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
decision, if not earlier. If he fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed to bethe ponente.
The Constitution provides that a case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolutionupon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.72 In Administrative Circular No. 28, dated July 3, 1989, the SupremeCourt provided that "A case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of theevidence of the parties at the termination of the trial. The ninety (90) days period for deciding the case shall commence to run from submission of the case for decision withoutmemoranda; in case the court requires or allows its filing, the case shall be consideredsubmitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the periodto do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a validreason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case waspreviously heard by another judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall havethe full period of ninety (90) days from the completion of the transcripts within which todecide the same."73 The designation of a ponente to a case is not a difficult administrativetask.
Administrative sanctions must be imposed. "Mor a r epr obatur i n lege."74 Again, we reiteratethe principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions andresponsibilities.75 In this area, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, as
the ponente assigned to the cases submitted for decision/resolution long ago, some as far back as more than ten (10) years ago, has been remiss constituting gross neglect of dutyand inefficiency.76 As we said in Canson,77 unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving acase amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into d i sr epute, eroding thepublic faith and confidence in the judiciary.78
Consequently, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena should be relieved of all trial and
administrative work as Presiding Justice and as Chairman, First Division so that he candevote himself full t i me to decision-making until his backlog is cleared. He shall finish thisassignment not later than six (6) months from the promulgation of this resolution.
We have, in cases where trial court judges failed to decide even a si ngle case within theninety (90) day period, imposed a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to theequivalent of their one month's salary.79 According to the report of the Sandiganbayan, as of September 26, 2000, there were three hundred forty one (341) cases submitted for decisionbefore its first division headed by the Presiding Justice. In the memorandum of the OCA,there were one hundred ninety eight (198) cases reported submitted for decision before theFirst Division.80 Even in the updated report, there are one hundred thirty eight (138) casesstill undecided in the First Division.
In fact, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that he has a backlog.81 Heclaimed that one (1) case alone comprises fifty percent (50%) of the backlog. We find thisclaim exaggerated. We cannot accept that a backlog of three hundred forty one (341) casesin the First Division could be eliminated by the resolution of a single consolidated case of one hundred fifty six (156) counts. A consolidated case is considered only as one case. Thecases referred to were consolidated as Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Cor azonGammad-Leaño, decided on December 8, 2000. What about the one hundred eighty five
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
(185) cases that unfortunately remained undecided to this date? Worse, the motion for reconsideration of the decision in said cases, submitted as of January 11, 2001, has notbeen resolved to this date.82 The First Division has only thirty (30) days from submission toresolve the same. It is now ten (10) months from submission. The exped i ente and themotion were transmitted to the ponente, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, on thatdate, but to this day the case remains unresolved.83 Unfortunately, even other divisions of the Sandiganbayan may be following his example.84
In the first report of the Court Administrator, he indicated a total of one hundred ninety five(195) criminal cases and three (3) civil cases, or a total of one hundred ninety eight (198)cases submitted for decision as of December 21, 2000.85 Almost a year later, as of November 16, 2001, there are still one hundred thirty eight (138) cases undecidedsubmitted long ago. For almost one year, not one case was decided/resolved by thePresiding Justice himself.86
Dir ect i ve
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:
(1) To IMPOSE on Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of twentythousand pesos (P20,000.00), for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty.
(2) Effective December 1, 2001, to RELIEVE Presiding Justice Francis E.Garchitorena of his powers, functions and duties as the Presiding Justice,Sandiganbayan, and from presiding over the trial of cases as a justice andChairman, First Division, so that he may DEVOTE himself exclusively to DECISIONWRITING, until the backlog of cases assigned to him as well as cases not assignedto any ponente, of which he shall be deemed the ponente in the First Division, are
finally decided. There shall be no unloading of cases to other divisions, or to the FirstDivision i nter se.
In the interim, Associate Justice Minita V. Chico-Nazario, as the most senior associate justice, shall TAKE OVER and exercise the powers, functions, and dutiesof the office of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, until further orders from thisCourt.
(3) To DIRECT Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the associate justicesof the Sandiganbayan to decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for decisionas of this date, within three (3) months from their submission, and to resolve motionsfor new trial or reconsiderations and petitions for review within thirty (30) days from
their submission. With respect to the backlog of cases, as hereinabove enumerated,the Sandiganbayan shall decide/resolve all pending cases including incidents thereinwithin six (6) months from notice of this resolution.
(4) To ORDER the Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court AdministrativeCircular 10-94, effective immediately.
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
(5) To DIRECT the Sandiganbayan en banc to adopt not later than December 31,2001 internal rules to govern the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotationof justices among them and other matters leading to the internal operation of thecourt, and thereafter to submit the said internal rules to the Supreme Court for itsapproval.87
This directive is immediately executory.
SO ORDERED.
Dav i de, J r ., C.J., Bellosi llo, Melo, Puno, V i tug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Pangani ban,Qui sumbi ng, Ynar es-Sant i ago, Sandoval-Gut i err ez, and Car pi o, JJ., concur.Buena, J., on official leave.De Leon, J r ., J., see dissenting and concurring opinion.
Separate Opinions
DE LEON, Jr., J.: concurring and dissenting
I respectfully dissent from the resolution of Mr. Justice Bernardo P. Pardo insofar as itdeclares and rules that the judgment of any division of the Sandiganbayan shall berendered within three (3) months, and not within twelve (12) months, from the date the casewas submitted for decision.
The resolution cites Section 6 of P.D. No. 1606 which requires that the judgment of the
Sandiganbayan "shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case wassubmitted for decision". The said provision was apparently adopted by the Sandiganbayanin Section 3 of Rule XVIII of its Revised Rules of Procedure which was issued pursuant toP.D. No. 1606. The resolution also cites Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94,dated June 25, 1994 which is addressed "To: All T ri al Cour t Judges and Clerks of Courts,Branch Clerks of Courts" but not to Sand i ganbayan Just i ces or the Clerk of Court andDivision Clerks of Courts of the Sandiganbayan.
SECTION 15 (1) and (2) Article VII of the 1997 Constitution, however, provides that:
SECTION 15(1). All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitutionmust be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon thefiling of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or bythe Court itself.
xxx xxx xxx
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
The Supreme Court in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not reduced the 12-monthperiod mentioned in the above quoted constitutional provision insofar as theSandiganbayan, a collegiate court, is concerned. It is basic that in case of conflict betweena constitutional provision on one hand and a statute or an internal rule of procedure of acourt on the other, the former, being a part of the fundamental law of the land, must prevail.
Also, pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8245 (approved on February 5, 1997) theSandiganbayan has also exclusive appellate jurisdiction "over final judgments, resolutionsor orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided."
In this connection, be it noted that section 1 of R.A. No. 8249 further amending P.D. No.1606, as amended, provides that:
SECTION 1. Sand i ganbayan; Composi t i on; Qual i f i cat i ons; Tenur e; Removal and Compensat i on ² A special court, of the same level as the Cour t of Appeals and
possessi ng all the i nher ent power s of a cour t of just i ce, to be known as theSand i ganbayan is hereby created composed of a presiding justice and fourteen
associate justices who shall be appointed by the President.
Incidentally, per the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan, each division is composedof three (3) justices whose unanimous vote is required to render a decision, resolution or order. In the event there is a dissent, a special division is formed whereby two (2) justiceswho shall be chosen by raffle and added to the division concerned, in which event, themajority rule shall prevail. For that reason and considering also that appeals from thedecisions of the Sandiganbayan are to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, theSandiganbayan as a collegiate trial court, is significantly different from the one-man regionaltrial court.
Subject to the foregoing observations and partial dissent, I concur with the rest of theresolution.
Footnotes
1 Dated July 29, 2000, done in Los Baños, Laguna. Signed by Arthur D. Lim(National President), and the following Governors: Carmencito P. Caingat (CentralLuzon), Jose P. Icaonapo, Jr. (Greater Manila), Teresita Infatado-Gines (SouthernLuzon), Serafin P. Rivera (Bicolandia), Celestino B. Sabate (Eastern Visayas), David
A. Ponce de Leon (Western Visayas), Paulino R. Ersando (Western Mindanao). Thefollowing did not take any part in the Resolution: Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (ExecutiveVice President) was on study leave, and Nicanor A. Magno (Governor for EasternMindanao) was on sick leave.
2 Rollo, p. 2.
3 Rollo, pp. 3-4.
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
8 Resolution of the Court En Banc dated October 10, 2000, Rollo, pp. 19-20.
9 Rollo, pp. 30-43.
10 Article VIII, Section 15 (1), Constitution.
11 Reply, Rollo, pp. 45-46.
12 Rollo, p. 52.
13 Fir st Di v i si on composed of Francis E. Garchitorena (Presiding Justice andChairman); Catalino R. Castañeda, Jr. (Associate Justice) and Gregory S. Ong(Associate Justice).
14 Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving156 cases.
15 Rollo, p. 56.
16 Rollo, pp. 61-101. The memorandum was a report on the judicial audit and
physical inventory of pending cases before the five (5) Divisions of theSandiganbayan conducted by the Court Administrator's Judicial Audit Team. Theteam was composed of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, together withConsultants Narciso T. Atienza, Conrado M. Molina, Romulo S. Quimbo, Pedro A.Ramirez, and staff. The report was prepared from December 11 to 19, 2000.
17 Rollo, pp. 61-104, at p. 100.
18 Li car os v. Sand i ganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001.
19 Memorandum to Chief Justice Davide dated January 26, 2001, Rollo, pp. 61-101,
at p. 101.
20 Pursuant to Section 15 (1) Article VIII, 1987 Constitution.
21 Section 6, P.D. No. 1606, as amended; Section 3, Rule XVIII of the Revised Rulesof the Sandiganbayan.
22 Cited in Montes v. Bugtas, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1627, April 17, 2001.
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
23 See 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court, pp. 7-8.
24 R.A. No. 8249 (An Act Further Defining the Jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan)classifies the Sandiganbayan as "[A] special court, of the same level as the Court of
Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice « x x x (Section1)."
25 R. A. No. 8249, Section 2, empowers the Sandiganbayan to "hold sessions x x xfor the trial and determination of cases filed with it."
26 R. A. No. 8249, Section 1.
27 P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, as amended.
28 R.A. No. 7975, Section 4, except to adopt internal rules governing the allotment of cases among the divisions, the rotation of justices among them and other mattersrelating to the internal operations of the court which shall be enforced until repealed
or modified by the Supreme Court.
29 Ibi d .
30 Supr a, Note 23, at p. 8.
31 Enumerated under Section 4 of R. A. No. 8249
32 Under R.A. No. 8249, Section 4, "The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusiveappellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trialcourts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate
jurisdiction as herein provided."
33 Memorandum of the Office of the Court Administrator, Rollo, pp. 137-147, at p.147.
34 Revising Presidential Decree No. 1486, creating a special court to be known asthe "Sandiganbayan."
35 R.A. No. 8249 is silent on this matter. Amendments are to be construed as if theyare included in the original act (Camacho v. CIR, 80 Phil. 848 [1948]).
36
P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, provides, "The Sandiganbayan shall have the power topromulgate its own rules of procedure and, pending such promulgation, the Rules of Court shall govern its proceedings." However, R.A. No. 7975, Sec. 4, repealed thisprovision, approved March 30, 1995, effective May 6, 1995.
37 Rule XVIII, Section 3, The Sandiganbayan, Revised Rules of Procedure.
38 R.A. No. 7975, Section 1.
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
43 All pending before the Sandiganbayan's First Division, of which Presiding JusticeFrancis E. Garchitorena is the Chairman.
44 Compliance, Rollo, pp. 7-18.
* Second Di v i si on composed of Edilberto G. Sandoval ( Assoc i ate Just i ce and Chair man); Godofredo L. Legaspi ( Assoc i ate Just i ce) and Raul V. Victorino( Assoc i ate Just i ce).
** Thir d Di v i si on composed of Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. ( Assoc i ate Just i ce and Chair man); Teresita Leonardo-De Castro ( Assoc i ate Just i ce) and Ricardo M. Ilarde( Assoc i ate Just i ce, Retired November 27, 2001).
*** F our th Di v i si on composed of Narciso S. Nario ( Assoc i ate Just i ce and Chair man);Rodolfo G. Palattao ( Assoc i ate Just i ce) and Nicodemo T. Ferrer ( Assoc i ate Just i ce).
**** Fi fth Di v i si on composed of Minita V. Chico-Nazario ( Assoc i ate Just i ce and Chair man); Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada ( Assoc i ate Just i ce) and Francisco H.Villaruz, Jr. ( Assoc i ate Just i ce).
45 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court of the Philippines, Annex "H", p. 258.
46 Dealing with a single delay in the municipal circuit trial court, Re: r epor t on theJud i c i al Aud i t Conducted i n the Muni c i pal C ir cui t T ri al Cour t, Di ngle-Duenas, Iloi lo,345 Phil. 884 (1997).
47 See Comment of Presiding Justice, G. R. No. 145851, Li car os v. Sand i ganbayan.
48 Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Cor azon Gammad-Leaño, involving156 cases.
49 Rollo, p. 56.
50 See Semestral Inventory of Pending Cases, for the period January to July, 2001,Sandiganbayan, First Division, dated August 24, 2001, submitted to the Office of theCourt Administrator by Estella Teresita C. Rosete, Executive Clerk of Court, FirstDivision, Sandiganbayan.
51 As of December 21, 2000.
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
52 Memorandum for Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104.
53 Cf. Re: Request of Judge Masamayor , RTC-Br . 52, Tal i bon, Bohol, F or Extensi onof T i me to Dec i de C i v i l Case No. 0020 and C ri mi nal Case No. 98-384, 316 SCRA219 (1999); Ber nar do v. F abr os, 366 Phil. 485 (1999).
54 In a Memorandum signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. addressed toJustice (Ret.) Pedro A. Ramirez, OCA Consultant.
55 Rollo, pp. 489-498.
56 Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 342-348
* Justice Catalino R. Castaneda, Jr. joined the Sandiganbayan on September 24,
1997.
* Justice Gregory S. Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 1998.
** The Fourth and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created only onSeptember 25, 1997.
*** The case assignments of Justice Badoy, Jr. were all transferred to JusticeVillaruz when Justice Badoy, Jr. transferred to the Third Division. The report of theSandiganbayan with respect case assignments is dated September 30, 2001 (See
Annex "E").
57 Dated June 29, 1994.
58 A(2) a.-c., Administrative Circular 10-94.
59 Resolution of the Court En Banc, Rollo, pp. 19-21, at p. 20.
60 R i ver a v. Lamor ena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).
61 Cueva v. V i llanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).
62 Repor t on the Jud i c i al Aud i t i n RTC, Br . 27, Lapu-Lapu C i ty , 352 Phil. 223, 232(1998); Sta. Ana v. Ari nday, J r ., 347 Phil. 671, 674 (1997).
63
Bolal i n v. Occ i ano, 334 Phil. 178 (1997).
64 Re: Repor t on the Jud i c i al Aud i t Conducted i n RTC, Br anches 29 and 59, ToledoC i ty , 354 Phil. 8 (1998); Abar quez v. Rebosur a, 349 Phil. 24, 38 (1998); Longboan v.Hon. Pol i g , 186 SCRA 557 (1990).
65 Sta. Ana v. Ari nday, J r ., supr a, Note 62.
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
67 Memorandum to Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104, at pp. 88,93.
68
Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 349-353.69 G. R. No. 145851, Li car os v. Sand i ganbayan, filed on November 23, 2000.
70 370 Phil. 287 (1999).
71 Supr a, at p. 288.
72 Article VIII, Sec. 15 (2), Constitution.
73 Supreme Court Circulars, Orders and Resolutions, October 1999 ed., pp. 144-145.
74 Delay is reprobated in law (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1951, WestPublishing Co., p. 1160.
75 R i ver a v. Lamor ena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).
76 Sabado v. Caj i gal , 219 SCRA 800 (1993); Casi a v. Gestopa, J r ., 371 Phil. 131(1999); Repor t on the Jud i c i al Aud i t Conducted i n RTC, Br s. 29, 56 and 57,Li bmanan, Camari nes Sur , 316 SCRA 272 (1999); Re: Cases Left U ndec i ded by Judge Nar c i so M. Bumanglag, J r ., 365 Phil. 492 (1999 ); Re: r epor t on the Jud i c i al
Aud i t Conducted i n the RTC, Br . 68, Cami l i ng, Tar lac , 364 Phil. 530(1999); Ber nar do v. F abr os, 366 Phil. 485 (1999); Loui s V i utton S. A. v. V i llanueva,
216 SCRA 121 (1992); Imposed in a case where there was failure to decide a casedespite the lapse of years from its submission (Lambino v. de Vera, 341 Phil. 62, 67(1997).
77 Supr a, Note 61, at p. 303-304.
78 Repor t on the Jud i c i al Aud i t Conducted i n the Muni c i pal C ir cui t T ri al Cour t, Di ngle-Duenas, Iloi lo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).
79 Supr a, Note 78.
80
As of December 21, 2000.
81 Supr a, Note 14, Rollo, p. 56.
82 As of November 16, 2001. See Compliance Report, dated November 16, 2001, of Justice Ramirez.
83 Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at p. 354.
5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com
84 According to the Sandiganbayan Fourth Division Clerk of Court, a motion for reconsideration in the case of People v. Bienvenido Tan (Crim. Case No. 20685)submitted on May 4, 2001, has also remained unresolved. Another instance of violation of the thirty day reglementary period for resolving motions for reconsideration.
85 Supr a, pp. 17-18 of this resolution.
86 On December 08, 2000, Presiding Justice Garchitorena decided a singleconsolidated case of 156 components, Crim. Cases Nos. 9812 to 9967, for estafathrough falsification of public documents.