SC fines ex-La Union judge over ‘midnight rulings’

MANILA, Philippines - The Supreme Court (SC) has penalized a former judge in La Union over “midnight decisions” that he handed down on the day of his retirement in 2006.

In a decision obtained by reporters yesterday, the SC’s Second Division found retired Judge Santiago Soriano guilty of gross inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law, and slapped him with P40,000 fine “to be taken from the amount withheld from his retirement benefits.”

The SC held that Soriano was “remiss in the performance of his judicial duties.”

“Judge Soriano’s unreasonable delay in deciding cases and resolving incidents and motions, and his failure to decide the remaining cases before his compulsory retirement constitutes gross inefficiency which cannot be tolerated,” read the ruling penned by Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio.

Citing previous ruling, the SC said “inexcusable failure to decide cases within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting the imposition of an administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.”

“Judge Soriano’s inefficiency in managing his caseload was compounded by gross negligence as evinced by the loss of the records of at least four cases which could no longer be located or reconstituted despite diligent efforts by his successor,” it said.

Soriano, it added, “was responsible for managing his court efficiently to ensure the prompt delivery of court services, especially the speedy disposition of cases.” 

Under Rule 3.08, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge is mandated to diligently discharge administrative responsibilities and maintain professional competence in court management.

A judge should also organize and supervise the court personnel to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, and require at all times the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity.

The court found Soriano guilty of gross ignorance of the law for deciding 12 cases on July 25, 2006, which was the day his compulsory retirement took effect.

Section 11, Article VIII of the Constitution states that judges shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of 70 or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of their office.

The case against Soriano stemmed from a judicial audit and inventory conducted by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on pending cases in the MTCC, Branch 2 in San Fernando, La Union and in the MTC in Naguilian, La Union.

The audit team found that out of the 59 cases submitted for decision in the MTCC, Branch 2, 57 cases were beyond the reglementary period to decide.

A similar finding was made in the Naguilian MTC where 39 out of 41 cases submitted for decision were beyond the period to rule.

The OCA then directed Soriano to decide the remaining unresolved cases and resolve the pending motions or incidents in the other cases.

However, Soriano still failed to decide a total of 36 cases submitted for decision in the MTC and MTCC combined, which were all due for decision at the time of his compulsory retirement.