A.M. No. MTJ-07-1683, September 11, 2013
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. HON. SANTIAGO E. SORIANO, FORMER ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SAN FERNANDO CITY, LA UNION, AND PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, NAGUILIAN, LA UNION, Respondent.
D E C I S I O N
1. TREAT the Report of the Judicial Audit Team as an administrative complaint, and to RE-DOCKET the same as a regular administrative matter against respondent Judge;In his letter dated 4 October 2007, Judge Soriano stated that he had already decided most of the cases enumerated in the Resolution, except those cases which were missing during the term of Clerk of Court Teresita Bravo. Judge Soriano requested for one month to verify the cases still undecided, which the Court granted in a Resolution dated 5 December 2007.
2. DEEM AS SATISFACTORY the explanation of Ms. Rosie M. Novencido, then OIC Clerk of Court, MTC, Naguilian, La Union, and consider the matter under consideration CLOSED and TERMINATED insofar as Ms. Novencido is concerned;
3. DIRECT Hon. Asuncion F. Mandia, Acting Presiding Judge, MTC, Naguilian, La Union, and the Clerk of Court thereof to inform the Court, thru the Office of DCA Perez, of the STATUS of the following cases, to wit: Crim. Case Nos. 2345-B, 2169, 2188, 2203, 2211, 2217, 2218, 2240, 2251, 2257, 2345, 2365, 2366, 2526, 2590, 2768, 2801, 2849, 3367, 3378 and 3988, found during the audit conducted of the MTC, Naguilian, La Union (from 22 March to 5 April 2004) as “cannot be located” and to cause the reconstitution of the missing records, if any, and submit proof of the reconstitution thereof, all within sixty (60) days from notice; and
4. REQUIRE Judge Santiago E. Soriano to comment on the Report of the Judicial Audit Team within ten (10) days from notice.3
1. DIRECT the OCA to: (a) VERIFY the present status of the cases left undecided, the incidents or motions left unresolved, and the dormant cases left unacted upon, all by Judge Santiago E. Soriano at the MTC, Naguilian and MTCC, San Fernando City, both in the province of La Union; and (b) SUBMIT to the Court a report thereon within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the information required; andMeanwhile, in a letter dated 3 September 2012, Judge Soriano prayed for the early resolution of this administrative matter and requested that his monthly pension be released, considering that he should have received his monthly pension beginning 25 July 2011, five years after he compulsorily retired on 25 July 2006 at the age of 70 years old.
2. NOTE the letter dated 15 November 2007 of Judge Romeo M. Atillo, Jr., MTC, Naguilian, La Union, and DIRECT Judge Atillo to SUBMIT within fifteen (15) days from notice a written report to the Court, through the OCA, on any further development regarding the reported missing case records.4
Municipal Trial Court, Naguilian, La UnionThe OCA also noted that Judge Soriano decided 12 cases on 25 July 2006, which was the day his compulsory retirement took effect. The OCA stressed that when Judge Soriano reached the compulsory retirement age of 70 on 25 July 2006, he is considered automatically retired on that date and could no longer exercise the powers and functions of his office, particularly promulgation of decisions.
1. Of the sixteen (16) undecided cases listed above, four (4) cases, namely, Criminal Case No. 4289, Civil Case Nos. 286 and 287, and LRC No. 002-02, were actually decided by Judge Santiago E. Soriano before he retired compulsorily on July 25, 2006, but all beyond the mandated period; four (4) cases namely, Criminal Case Nos. 3300, 3361, 3927 and 4274, remain undecided up to the present and the respective records thereof are missing and could no longer be found; two (2) cases, namely, Criminal Case Nos. 3663 and 3664, were decided jointly by Acting Presiding Judge Asuncion F. Mandia; five (5) cases, namely, Criminal Case Nos. 2834, 4001, 4002, 4149 and 4154, were decided by Judge Romeo M. Atillo, Jr.; and Criminal Case No. 3922 was reported to have been decided on July 11, 2006, but no copy of the decision was attached to the letter-report;
2. Of the five (5) cases with unresolved incidents or motions listed above, the incidents in four (4) cases, namely, Criminal Case Nos. 3347 and 3351, SP No. 01-03 and Civil Case No. 192, were resolved by Judge Soriano before his compulsory retirement; and the incident, i.e., motion for new trial, in Civil Case No. 282 remains unresolved up to the present; and
3. The records of two (2) of the dormant cases listed above, namely, Criminal Case No. 4117 and Civil Case No. 210, are missing and could no longer be found. All the other dormant cases have already been disposed of by Judge Atillo, Jr.
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, San Fernando City, La Union
1. Of the twenty-seven (27) undecided cases listed above, two (2) cases, namely, Criminal Case No. 31268 and Civil Case No. 3864, were actually decided by Judge Soriano before his compulsory retirement but beyond the mandated period, and the remaining cases were decided or disposed of by Judge Corpuz;
2. With respect to the two (2) cases with unresolved incidents or motions listed above, Civil Case No. 3851 was decided by Judge Corpuz on October 28, 2008, but it was not reported whether the subject motion for reconsideration of the July 10, 2003 Order declaring defendant in default, which was submitted for resolution on September 24, 2003, was resolved; and the motion for reconsideration of the June 26, 2003 Order in LRC No. N-95-04, which was submitted for resolution on January 21, 2004, was ordered denied by Judge Corpuz on September 15, 2006; and
3. With respect to the two (2) dormant cases listed above, namely, Civil Case No. 3487 and LRC No. N-95-67, both were dismissed by Judge Corpuz on September 29, 2005 and October 11, 2006, respectively.
x x x x
The result of the verification of the status of the cases earlier found to have been left undecided by retired Judge Soriano at the MTC, Naguilian and MTCC, Branch 2, San Fernando City, both in the province of La union, showing that he failed to decide a total of thirty-six (36) cases submitted for decision , which were already all due for decision at the time he compulsorily retired on July 25, 2006, confirms our findings against retired Judge Soriano in our March 11, 2011 Memorandum. Worse, the records in four (4) of said cases could no longer be accounted for and were confirmed by Judge Atillo to be missing and beyond recovery. The thirty-two (32) other cases were decided by the judges who succeeded retired Judge Soriano in the MTC, Naguilian and MTCC, Branch 2, San Fernando City, both in the Province of La Union.5
1. Ret. Judge Santiago E. Soriano, formerly of the Municipal Trial Court, Naguilian, La Union as its Presiding Judge and of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities as its Acting Presiding Judge, be found GUILTY of Gross Inefficiency and Gross Ignorance of the Law and be FINED in the amount of Php40,000.00, to be taken from the amount earlier withheld from his retirement benefits; and
2. the annuity payable monthly to retired Judge Soriano under R.A. 910, as amended, beginning on July 25, 2011, be RELEASED immediately.8
SEC. 3. Upon retirement, a Justice of the Supreme Court or of the Court of Appeals, the Sandiganbayan or of the Court of Tax Appeals, or a Judge of the regional trial court, metropolitan trial court, municipal trial court in cities, municipal trial court, municipal circuit trial court, shari’a district court, shari’a circuit court, or any other court hereafter established shall be automatically entitled to a lump sum of five (5) years’ gratuity computed on the basis of the highest monthly salary plus the highest monthly aggregate of transportation, representation and other allowances such as personal economic relief allowance (PERA) and additional compensation allowance he/she was receiving on the date of his/her retirement and thereafter upon survival after the expiration of five (5) years, to further annuity payable monthly during the residue of his/her natural life pursuant to Section 1 hereof x x x.WHEREFORE, the Court finds retired Judge Santiago E. Soriano guilty of gross inefficiency and gross ignorance of the law, and fines him P40,000 to be taken from the amount withheld from his retirement benefits. The Court orders the immediate release of the annuity payable monthly to Judge Soriano under Republic Act No. 910, as amended by Republic Act No. 9946, beginning 25 July 2011.chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
* Designated additional member per Raffle dated 6 January 2010.cralawnad
1 OCA Memoranda dated 1 and 2 July 2004 signed by then Deputy Court Administrator Jose P. Perez (now a member of this Court) addressed to Judge Soriano as Presiding Judge of MTC, Naguilian, La Union, and as Acting Presiding Judge of MTCC. Branch 2, San Fernando City, La Union, respectively.cralawnad
2 Now a member of this Court.cralawnad
3Rollo, pp. 910-911.cralawnad
4 Id. at 1313.cralawnad
5 Id. at 1611-1613.cralawnad
6 An Act to Provide for the Retirement of Justices of the Supreme Court and of the Court of Appeals, for the Enforcement of the Provisions hereof by the Government Service Insurance System, and to Repeal Commonwealth Act Numbered Five Hundred and Thirty-Six.cralawnad
7 An Act Granting the Additional Retirement, Survivorship, and other Benefits to Members of the Judiciary, Amending for the Purpose Republic Act No. 910, as Amended, Providing Funds Therefor and for other Purposes.cralawnad
8Rollo, p. 1615.cralawnad
9Hebron v. Garcia II, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2334, 14 November 2012, 685 SCRA 417; Office of the Court Administrator v. Castañeda, A.M. No. RTJ-12-2316, 9 October 2012, 682 SCRA 321; Maturan v. Gutierrez-Torres, A.M. OCA I.P.I. No. 04-1606-MTJ, 19 September 2012, 681 SCRA 311; Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 72 and 22, Narvacan, Ilocos Sur, A.M. No. 06-9-525-RTC, 13 June 2012, 672 SCRA 21; Hipe v. Literato, A.M. No. MTJ-11-1781, 25 April 2012, 671 SCRA 9.cralawnad
10 Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court reads:
Less serious charges. - Less serious charges include:
11 Section 11(B), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.cralawnad
- Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
- Frequent and unjustified absences without leave or habitual tardiness;
- Unauthorized practice of law;
- Violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
- Receiving additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by law;
- Untruthful statements in the certificate of service; and
- Simple Misconduct.
12Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar, 562 Phil. 301, 316 (2007).cralawnad
13Re: Cases Left Undecided by Ret. Judge Arbis, 443 Phil. 496 (2003).cralawnad
14 Rule 3.09, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct.cralawnad
15 Sec. 11. The Members of the Supreme Court and judges of lower courts shall hold office during good behavior until they reach the age of seventy years or become incapacitated to discharge the duties of the office. The Supreme Court en banc shall have the power to discipline judges of lower courts, or order their dismissal by a vote of a majority of the Members who actually took part in the deliberations on the issues in the case and voted thereon.cralawnad
16Nazareno v. Court of Appeals, 428 Phil. 32 (2002).cralawnad
17 Section 11(A), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court states:
Section 11. Sanctions. - A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
1. Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided, however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave credits;
2. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three (3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
3. A fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.