The Sandiganbayan is a special court created "in an effort to maintain honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy, weed out misfits and undesirables in the government and eventually stamp out graft and corruption." 45 We have held consistently that a delay of three (3) years in deciding a single case is inexcusably long. 46 We can not accept the excuses of Presiding Justice Sandiganbayan Francis E. Garchitorena that the court was reorganized in 1997; that the new justices had to undergo an orientation and that the Sandiganbayan relocated to its present premises which required the packing and crating of records; and that some boxes were still unopened 47
We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena’s excuse that one case alone 48 comprises more that fifty percent (50%) of the First Division’s backlog and that the same has been set for promulgation on December 8, 2000. 49 As we said, a delay in a single case cannot be tolerated, "para muestra, basta un boton." (for an example, one button suffices).It is admitted that there are several other cases submitted for decision as far back as ten (10) years ago that have remained undecided by the First Division, of which Justice Garchitorena is presiding justice and chairman. Indeed, there is even one case, which is a simple motion to withdraw the information filed by the prosecutor. This has remained unresolved for more than seven (7) years (since 1994). 50 The compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice incriminates him. The memorandum submitted by the Court 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 that were still pending promulgation 51 before the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are: 52
We find that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena failed to devise an efficient recording and filing system to enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedy and timely disposition. This is his duty on which he failed. 53
Memorandum of the Court Administrator
On November 14, 2001, the Court required the Office of the Court Administrator 54 to update its 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 report shows that to this day, several cases that were reported pending by the Sandiganbayan on September 26, 2000, and likewise reported undecided by the OCA on January 26, 2001, have not been decided/resolved. We quote the compliance report: 56
Summary/Tally
Cases Assigned to Badoy, J. *** 11
Cases Assigned to Estrada, J. 7
Cases Assigned to Chico-Nazario, J. 1
No report/Unaccounted For 1
————
Total 20
3. Applicability of SC Adm. Circular No. 10-94. — Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan.
Administrative Circular 10-94 57 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases 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 last week of August of each year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate on a horizontal column the following data:jgc:chanrobles.com.ph
"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 has personally undertaken an inventory of the pending cases in his/her court; that he/she has examined each case record and initialed the last page thereof. The judge shall indicate 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 __________
—————————————————————————————
Title of Date Pretrial/ Initial Date of Date
Case Filed Arraignment Hearing Last submitted
Hearing for Decision
———————————————————————————
"CERTIFICATION:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
I hereby certify that on (Date/Dates ____), I personally conducted a physical inventory of pending cases in the docket of this court, that I personally examined the records of each case and initialed the last page thereof, and I certify that the results of the inventory 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.
Mora Decidendi
We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000: 59
"This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member of the bench 60 Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency 61 that warrants disciplinary sanction including fine 62 suspension 63 and even dismissal 64 . The rule particularly applies to justices of the Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it 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 against graft (Emphasis ours)." chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
In Yuchengco v. Republic, 66 we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice. We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the nation’s anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for graft, uphold the right of 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 and third divisions of the Sandiganbayan of unloading cases to other divisions despite the fact that these cases have been submitted for decision before them. We cite relevant portions of the memorandum: 67
We suggest a review of the practice of unloading cases that greatly contributes to the backlog of undecided cases. When a case has been heard and tried before a division of the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same division and no other must decide it as far as practicable.
We further note that several cases which were earlier reported as undecided by the Sandiganbayan and the OCA have been decided since the reports of September 26, 2000 and January 26, 2001. Nonetheless, the delay in deciding these cases is patent and merits reprobation. 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 law, even assuming without granting, a reglementary period of twelve months from the time a case is submitted for decision. 68
In a case brought before this Court, Presiding Justice Garchitorena admitted fault and that the fault is exclusively his own, in failing to decide the case, though submitted for decision as early as June 20, 1990 69 This case was not even included among pending cases in the Sandiganbayan report of September 26, 2000.
The following cases were decided, though beyond the prescribed period:
Relief of Presiding Justice
At this juncture, the Court cites the case of Canson v. Garchitorena. 70 In that case, we admonished 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 Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, depriving complainant of 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 the decision cautioned respondent justice that "a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely." 71
Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena sits as the Chairman, First Division, with a backlog 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 backlog of undecided cases. This is not correct. It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen of divisions to assign the ponente as soon as the case is declared submitted for decision, if not earlier. If he fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed to be the ponente.
The Constitution provides that a case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon 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 Supreme Court provided that "A case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence 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 without memoranda; in case the court requires or allows its filing, the case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety (90) days from the completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same." 73 The designation of a ponente to a case is not a difficult administrative task.
Administrative sanctions must be imposed. "Mora reprobatur in lege." 74 Again, we reiterate the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities. 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 duty and inefficiency. 76 As we said in Canson, 77 unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into disrepute, eroding the public 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 can devote himself full time to decision-making until his backlog is cleared. He shall finish this assignment 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 single case within the ninety (90) day period, imposed a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to the equivalent 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 decision before 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 the First Division. 80 Even in the updated report, there are one hundred thirty eight (138) cases still undecided in the First Division.chanrob1es virtua1 1aw 1ibrary
In fact, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that he has a backlog. 81 He claimed that one (1) case alone comprises fifty percent (50%) of the backlog. We find this claim exaggerated. We cannot accept that a backlog of three hundred forty one (341) cases in 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. The cases referred to were consolidated as Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, decided on December 8, 2000. What about the one hundred eighty five (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 not been resolved to this date. 82 The First Division has only thirty (30) days from submission to resolve the same. It is now ten (10) months from submission. The expediente and the motion were transmitted to the ponente, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, on that date, 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 undecided submitted long ago. For almost one year, not one case was decided/resolved by the Presiding Justice himself. 86
Directive
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:chanrob1es virtual 1aw library
(1) To IMPOSE on Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of twenty thousand 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 and Chairman, First Division, so that he may DEVOTE himself exclusively to DECISION WRITING, until the backlog of cases assigned to him as well as cases not assigned to 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 First Division inter 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 duties of the office of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, until further/orders from this Court.
(3) To DIRECT Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the associate justices of the Sandiganbayan to decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for decision as of this date, within three (3) months from their submission, and to resolve motions for 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 therein within six (6) months from notice of this resolution.
(4) To ORDER the Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Circular 10-94, effective immediately.
(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 rotation of justices among them and other matters leading to the internal operation of the court, and thereafter to submit the said internal rules to the Supreme Court for its approval. 87
This directive is immediately executory
SO ORDERED.
Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez and Carpio, JJ., concur.
Buena J., on official leave.
Endnotes:
1. Dated July 29, 2000, done in Los Baños, Laguna. Signed by Arthur D. Lim (National President), and the following Governors: Carmencito P. Caingat (Central Luzon), Jose P. Icaonapo, Jr. (Greater Manila), Teresita Infatado-Gines (Southern Luzon), Serafin P. Rivera (Bicolandia), Celestino B. Sabate (Eastern Visayas), David A. Ponce de Leon (Western Visayas), Paulino R. Ersando (Western Mindanao). The following did not take any part in the Resolution: Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Executive Vice President) was on study leave, and Nicanor A. Magno (Governor for Eastern Mindanao) was on sick leave.
2. Rollo, p. 2.
3. Rollo, pp. 34.
4. Rollo, p. 5.
5. Dated September 26, 2000, Rollo, pp. 6-18.
6. Rollo, p. 6.
7. As of September 15, 2000, Rollo, pp. 17-18.
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. First Division composed of Francis E. Garchitorena (Presiding Justice and Chairman); Catalino R. Castañeda, Jr. (Associate Justice) and Gregory S. Ong (Associate Justice).
14. Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving 156 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 the Sandiganbayan conducted by the Court Administrator’s Judicial Audit Team. The team was composed of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, together with Consultants 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. Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, 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 XVII of the Revised Rules of the Sandiganbayan.
22. Cited in Montes v. Bugtas, A. M. No. RTJ-01-1627, April 17, 2001.
23 See 2000 Annual Report of the Supreme Court, pp. 7-8. 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 . . . (Section 1)."cralaw virtua1aw library
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 … xxx (Section 1)â€
25. R. A. No. 8249, Section 2, empowers the Sandiganbayan to "hold sessions . . . for the trial and determination of cases filed with it."cralaw virtua1aw library
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 matters relating to the internal operations of the court which shall be enforced until repealed or modified by the Supreme Court.
29. Ibid.
30. Supra, 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 exclusive appellate jurisdiction ova final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction u herein provided."cralaw virtua1aw library
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 as the "Sandiganbayan."cralaw virtua1aw library
35. R. A. No. 8249 is silent on this matter. Amendments are to be construed as if they are 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 to promulgate 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 this provision, approved March 30, 199S, effective May 6, 1995.
37. Rule XVIII Section 3, The Sandiganbayan, Revised Rules of Procedure.
38. R. A. No. 7975, Section 1.
39. Cariño v. Ofilada, 217 SCRA 206 (1993).
40. Dacumos v. Sandiganbayan, 195 SCRA 833 (1991), discussing the power of a trial court.
41. 334 Phil. 369, 386 (1997).
42. 329 Phil-300, 309-310 (1996)
43 All pending before the Sandiganbayan’s First Division, of which Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena is the Chairman.
44. Compliance, Rollo, pp. 7-18.
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: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).
47. See Comment of Presiding Justice, G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan.
48. Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving 156 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 the Court Administrator by Estella Teresita C. Rosete, Executive Clerk of Court, First Division, Sandiganbayan.
51. As of December 21, 2000.
52. Memorandum for Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr., Rollo, pp. 61-104.
53. Cf: Re: Request of Judge Masamayor, RTC-Br. 52, Talibon, Bohol, For Extension of Time to Decide Civil Case No. 0020 and Criminal Case No. 98-384, 316 SCRA 219 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485 (1999).
54. In a Memorandum signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. addressed to Justice (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 tic Sandiganbayan on September 24, 1997.
*** The case assignments of Justice Badoy, Jr. were all transferred to Justice Villaruz when Justice Badoy, Jr. transferred to the Third Division. The report of the Sandiganbayan 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. Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).
61. Cueva V. Villanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).
62. Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-lapu City, 352 Phil. 223, 232 (1998). Sta. Ana V. Arinday, Jr. 347 Phil. 671, 674 (1997).
63. Bolalin v. Occiano, 334 Phil. 178 (19970.
64. Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, 354 Phil. 8 (1998); Abarquez v. Rebosura, 349 Phil. 24, 38 (1998): Longboan v. Hon. Polig, 186 SCRA 557 (1990).
65. Sta. Ana v. Arinda, Jr., supra, Note 62.
66. 333 SCRA 368, 387 (2000).
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, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, filed on November 23, 2000.
70. 370 Phil. 287 (1999).
71. Supra, 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 (Blacks Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1951, West Publishing Co., p. 1160.
75. Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).
76. Sabado V. Cajigal 219 SCRA 800 (1993); Casia v. Gestopa, Jr., 371 Phil. 131 (1999); Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Brs. 29, 56 and 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, 316 SCRA 272 (1999); Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr., 365 Phil. 492 (1999); Re: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 68, Camiling, Tarlac, 364 Phil. 530 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485 (1999); Louis Vuitton S. A. v. Villanueva, 216 SCRA 121 (1992); Imposed in a case where there was failure to decide a case despite the lapse of years from its submission (Lambino v. de Vera, 341 Phil. 62, 67 (1997).
77. Supra, Note 61, at p. 303-304.
78. Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).
79. Supra, Note 78.
80. As of December 21, 2000.
81. Supra, Note 14, Rollo, p. 56.
82. As of November 16, 2001. Sec Compliance Report, dated November 16, 2001, of Justice Ramirez.
83. Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at p. 354.
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 unsolved. Another instance of violation of the thirty day reglementary period for resolving motions for reconsideration.
85. Supra, pp. 17-18 of this resolution.
86. On December 08, 2000, Presiding Justice Garchitorena decided a single consolidated case of 156 components, Crim. Cases Nos. 9812 to 9967, for estafa through falsification of public documents.
87. R. A. No. 7975, Section 4.