Facts:
This is the case of judicial audit and physical inventory of court records conducted in the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan-Compostela, Liloan, Cebu (MCTC), presided by Judge Dacanay. revealing that the MCTC had a caseload of 663 cases with 103 cases submitted for decision and 93 cases with pending incidents submitted for resolution. 99 out of the 103 cases submitted for decision were all beyond the 90-day reglementary period to decide; and 91 out of the 93 cases with pending incidents were also beyond the required period to act upon. There were also a number of cases where no initial action had been taken since their filing, while there were others which failed to progress after a considerable length of time. He claimed that his failure to decide and resolve cases on time was not because of his laziness, willful neglect of duty or complacency, but was due to the heavy workload in his court which is a circuit court composed of 2 municipalities with the highest number of cases received every month. He explained that he spends most of his time hearing cases in court and issuing orders and, thus, lacks time to write decisions. Such delay is further compounded by insufficient staff and cases that lacked stenographic notes. In addition, he likewise claimed that he was suffering from cardiovascular disease, hypertension, impaired glucose tolerance, and chronic back pains; and, in the year 2008, he suffered a stroke while he was attending to his court duties.
OCA recommended that Judge Dacanay be found guilty of gross inefficiency and be meted a fine of P75,000.00 with a warning that a similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.
This is the case of judicial audit and physical inventory of court records conducted in the 7th Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Liloan-Compostela, Liloan, Cebu (MCTC), presided by Judge Dacanay. revealing that the MCTC had a caseload of 663 cases with 103 cases submitted for decision and 93 cases with pending incidents submitted for resolution. 99 out of the 103 cases submitted for decision were all beyond the 90-day reglementary period to decide; and 91 out of the 93 cases with pending incidents were also beyond the required period to act upon. There were also a number of cases where no initial action had been taken since their filing, while there were others which failed to progress after a considerable length of time. He claimed that his failure to decide and resolve cases on time was not because of his laziness, willful neglect of duty or complacency, but was due to the heavy workload in his court which is a circuit court composed of 2 municipalities with the highest number of cases received every month. He explained that he spends most of his time hearing cases in court and issuing orders and, thus, lacks time to write decisions. Such delay is further compounded by insufficient staff and cases that lacked stenographic notes. In addition, he likewise claimed that he was suffering from cardiovascular disease, hypertension, impaired glucose tolerance, and chronic back pains; and, in the year 2008, he suffered a stroke while he was attending to his court duties.
OCA recommended that Judge Dacanay be found guilty of gross inefficiency and be meted a fine of P75,000.00 with a warning that a similar infraction would be dealt with more severely.
Issue:
Whether or not Judge Dacanay should be held
administratively liable.
Held:
The Court agrees
with the findings and recommendation of the OCA, and resolves to adopt the same
in its entirety. Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the 1987 Constitution mandates
lower court judges to decide a case within the reglementary period of 90 days, while
the Code of Judicial Conduct under Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 directs judges to
administer justice without delay and dispose of the courts' business promptly
within the period prescribed by law. Judge Dacanay clearly failed to decide the
99 cases submitted for decision and resolve the 91 cases with pending incidents
in his sala within the prescribed reglementary period — with some of those
cases/incidents taking more than 10 years to be decided or resolved. records
show that most of the cases and incidents for decision or resolution in his
sala were submitted long before he suffered a stroke in 2008. Moreover, records
are bereft of any showing that he requested for extensions of the period within
which he can decide or resolve the aforesaid cases and incidents, or that he
proferred any credible explanation for the delay in their disposition. Hence,
the OCA correctly found Judge Dacanay administratively liable. Such acts
constitute gross inefficiency.
No comments:
Post a Comment