SC warns judges not to delay cases

The Supreme Court ordered all judges to resolve the cases assigned to them within the prescribed period otherwise they will face the risk of being sanctioned.

This after a judge in Negros Oriental was slapped with a P20,000 fine for delaying to resolve cases assigned to his sala before he retired from the service three years ago.

But because Judge Felix G. Gaudiel Jr., who used to preside the Regional Trial Court Branch 64 in Guihulngan town, already retired from service on December 4, 2002, his penalty will be deducted from his retirement benefits.

The audit team from the Office of the Court Administrator conducted an inventory of all cases assigned to Gaudiel months before his retirement and learned that he failed to resolve several cases.

As of October 14, 2002, Gaudiel had only 23 cases in his sala but 17 of them were left undecided even after 90 days from the date of their submission, which is a violation of the rules of courts.

The audit also revealed that Gaudiel allowed 97 cases to become dormant for a considerable length of time as a result of his inaction.

It was learned that Gaudiel wrote Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco Jr. on September 11, 2002 to manifest that he would not be holding sessions from September 16, 2002, until November 16, 2002 to devote his time on cases already submitted for decision.

But still he was unable to decide any of those cases because he went on sick leave from September 30, 2002 up to the time of the audit on October 14, 2002.

Gaudiel explained that his failure to decide his cases on time was due to his failing health that compelled him to rest two months before his retirement. He stated that the Supreme Court refused to grant his letter-request for extension of his judicial service until May 2, 2003.

But Gaudiel failed to explain why he failed to act on the 97 dormant cases for a considerable length of time. Neither did he explain his absence from September 30, 2002 up to the third week of October 2002.

Justice Leonardo Quisumbing, who penned the decision, ruled: "We have always emphasized the imperative for judges to decide cases promptly and expeditiously within the constitutionally prescribed 90-day period. Failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency, which consequently warrants administrative sanctions."

Records show that Gaudiel failed to decide 16 cases within the prescribed period, and to resolve matters pending in 23 other cases. He also failed to act for an unreasonable length of time over 97 cases, some of them for more than three and a half years.

"Respondent can not blame this Court for refusing to extend his judicial service. The compulsory retirement age of members of the bench is prescribed by the Constitution. This matter is determined by the judge's age, beyond this Court's discretion," the SC ruled. - Rene U. Borromeo