Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

A presiding justice's consistent failure over many years to decide cases submitted for decision and to assign ponentes to unassigned cases constitutes inefficiency and gross neglect of duty warranting administrative sanctions, and such sanctions may be imposed without separate formal charges where the justice was already required to comment on the circumstances giving rise to the inquiry and had himself supplied the information forming the basis of the finding.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) submitted a resolution on July 31, 2000, recommending that the Supreme Court inquire into the causes of delay in the resolution of incidents, motions, and cases before the Sandiganbayan. On August 8, 2000, the Court required Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena to comment on the IBP resolution and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayan cases pending decision. The Court thereafter conducted an audit through the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which revealed that the First Division, chaired by Garchitorena, had the largest backlog of undecided and unassigned cases, some pending for as long as ten years. The Sandiganbayan had been expanded to five divisions by Republic Act No. 7975 in 1995, with six new justices appointed in September 1997.

The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, on July 31, 2000, submitted a resolution to the Supreme Court recommending an inquiry into the causes of delay in the resolution of incidents, motions, and cases before the Sandiganbayan. On August 8, 2000, the Court required Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena to comment on the IBP resolution and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayan cases pending decision. Garchitorena complied and admitted that as of September 2000, a total of 415 cases were submitted for decision across all five divisions: 341 in the First Division (which he chaired), 5 in the Second, 12 in the Third, 5 in the Fourth, and 52 in the Fifth. The audit conducted by the OCA through Justice Ramirez confirmed that the First Division had the bulk of the backlog, that some cases dated as far back as ten years from submission, and that the Sandiganbayan lacked an accurate filing and recording system—an administrative task under the direction and control of the Presiding Justice.

On November 28, 2001, the Court issued a resolution imposing a fine of P20,000 on Garchitorena for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty, and temporarily relieving him of his powers, functions, and duties as Presiding Justice and as Chairman of the First Division, except for decision-writing, so that he could devote himself exclusively to disposing of the backlog. The resolution also deemed him ponente of all unassigned cases in the First Division. Garchitorena filed a "Clarification and Motion for Reconsideration" on December 21, 2001, praying that the order to dispose of all 36 sets of unassigned cases (60 individual cases) be set aside and that the fine be likewise set aside.

Garchitorena argued that he was not idle, citing that from September 2000 to November 2001 he acted on 44 dismissals—12 for lack of probable cause, 2 on demurrers to evidence, and 30 for withdrawals of information—though none of these were part of the backlog. He explained that the First Division had been out of town six times to hear cases, and that his time was occupied by presiding over pre-trials, reviewing vouchers, attending to incoming mail, and conferring with various persons. He described his work as "intense." The Court found, however, that from December 21, 2000 to November 16, 2001—almost one year—not one case was decided or resolved by Garchitorena himself. As of November 16, 2001, 138 cases remained undecided in the First Division. The Court also noted that a motion for reconsideration in the consolidated case of People vs. Corazon Gammad-Leaño (Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967), submitted on January 11, 2001, remained unresolved as of the resolution date—ten months after submission despite a 30-day reglementary period. In one case, People vs. Rafael Sison (Criminal Case No. 20557), Garchitorena failed to act for seven years, since 1994.

• Due Process — Lack of Notice: Garchitorena contended that he was not made aware he was at peril of sanctions, nor was he informed of the findings of the Court Administrator which he should have been given the opportunity to explain or clarify. He argued that the IBP resolution did not involve matters attributable to him and that he should not be held accountable for conditions in the entire court.
• Due Process — Opportunity to be Heard: Garchitorena bewailed that he was not given the opportunity to be heard, claiming he was singled out with severity.
• Equal Protection: Garchitorena argued that he was unfairly singled out among all Sandiganbayan justices, complaining that the Court attributed to him responsibility for all pending cases in the other divisions.
• Not Inefficient or Incompetent: Garchitorena posited that the imputation of inefficiency was unwarranted, stating that he was not idle and that his failings were administrative lapses, not sloth. He described his work as "intense," citing 44 dismissals in 14 months and out-of-town hearings.
• Non-Assignment as Mere Administrative Lapse: Garchitorena belittled his non-assignment of cases as a mere "administrative lapse" or "administrative error," and cited the 1997 court reorganization and the need to reorient new justices as justification for the delay in assignment.
• Unloading of Cases: Garchitorena asserted that the Court unfairly attributed to him the unloading of cases to other divisions, and that he had no advantage in not distributing cases at an earlier time.
• Excessive Fine: Garchitorena prayed that the P20,000 fine be set aside, implying it was excessive.
• Relief from Disposing of Unassigned Cases: Garchitorena prayed that the order requiring him to dispose of all 36 sets of unassigned cases (60 individual cases) be set aside.

• Due Process — Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard: Whether Garchitorena was denied due process of law on the ground that he was not given notice of the charges and was not afforded the opportunity to be heard.
• Equal Protection: Whether Garchitorena was singled out in violation of equal protection of the laws.
• Inefficiency and Gross Neglect of Duty: Whether Garchitorena's failure to decide cases and to assign ponentes constituted inefficiency and gross neglect of duty warranting administrative sanctions.
• Responsibility for Unassigned Cases: Whether Garchitorena could be held responsible as ponente of unassigned cases in the First Division.
• Adequacy of the Fine: Whether the P20,000 fine imposed was excessive or unfair.

• Due Process — Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard: No. Garchitorena was not denied due process; he was required to comment on the IBP resolution, filed the compliance that incriminated him, wrote a letter to the Chief Justice admitting his backlog, and the audit was based on reports and memoranda prepared by the Sandiganbayan of which he was head of office.
• Equal Protection: No. Garchitorena was not unfairly singled out; it was his own actions and inactions—chairing the division with the biggest backlog, failing to assign ponentes, and deciding not one case for almost a year—that distinguished him from other justices.
• Inefficiency and Gross Neglect of Duty: Yes. Garchitorena's consistent and blatant failure over sixteen years to decide cases submitted for decision and to assign ponentes constituted inefficiency and gross neglect of duty, as decision-making is the most important judicial function and delay beyond the 90-day period is detrimental to the administration of justice.
• Responsibility for Unassigned Cases: Yes. As Division Chairman, Garchitorena had the duty to assign the ponente as soon as a case was declared submitted for decision; his failure to make the assignment meant he was deemed the ponente of those unassigned cases.
• Adequacy of the Fine: No, the fine was not excessive. The P20,000 fine was nominal, given that the Court had imposed P5,000 fines on trial court judges for delay in a single case, and Garchitorena's backlog involved hundreds of cases over many years.

• Due Process — Notice and Opportunity to Be Heard: The Court found that Garchitorena had ample opportunity to be heard. On August 8, 2000, the Court required him to comment on the IBP resolution and to submit a list of all pending cases. He filed the compliance on behalf of the Sandiganbayan that revealed the backlog. He wrote a letter to the Chief Justice admitting his backlog. The audit by Justice Ramirez was based on reports and memoranda prepared by the Sandiganbayan itself, of which Garchitorena was head of office. Garchitorena did not dispute that he provided the information used as the basis for the OCA memorandum. The Court further held that a judge worthy of the office ought to know that he is in peril of administrative sanctions the moment he incurs delay in deciding cases, citing the maxim mora decidendi reprobatur in lege. Prior admonishments in Canson vs. Garchitorena and the warning in Licaros vs. Sandiganbayan—where the Court was forced to dismiss charges against an accused due to violation of his constitutional right to speedy disposition—served as prior notice that delays would be dealt with severely.

• Equal Protection: The Court held that Garchitorena was not singled out by the Court but by his own actions and inactions. He stood out in the entire judiciary because the First Division he chaired had the biggest backlog of both pending and unassigned cases. He had been Presiding Justice for sixteen years. He unloaded cases already submitted for decision to newly appointed justices under the guise of reorganization, which was not warranted under the law creating additional divisions. The Court clarified that it had not attributed to Garchitorena responsibility for all pending cases in other divisions; the resolution specifically addressed the backlog in the First Division and the unassigned cases therein. The Court also clarified that it had merely "suggested" a review of the practice of unloading cases and had not accused Garchitorena of fault in that regard.

• Inefficiency and Gross Neglect of Duty: The Court applied Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. A case must be decided within ninety days from submission; failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. Garchitorena's backlog was not a single-case delay but a consistent, blatant, and patent failure over sixteen years. Cases submitted as far back as 1990 had not been assigned for the writing of a decision. From December 21, 2000 to November 16, 2001, not one case was decided by Garchitorena himself. The Court rejected his claim that he was not idle, finding that the matters he attended to—review of vouchers, incoming mail, and conferences—were not judicial functions that a clerk of court or executive assistant could not handle. His 44 dispositions in 14 months were routine minutes prepared by the clerk of court on standard forms. Decision-making is the most important duty of a member of the bench, and no other matter—including reviewing vouchers and attending to incoming mail—can be more important. An administrative lapse or error done blatantly several times over a long period constitutes inefficiency. The Court also noted that a judge may even be held criminally liable for malicious delay in the administration of justice.

• Responsibility for Unassigned Cases: The Court held that the duty to assign a ponente arises as soon as a case is declared submitted for decision, if not earlier, and falls upon the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen of divisions. The designation of a ponente is not a difficult administrative task. Since Garchitorena failed to make the assignment, he was deemed to have taken on the task of writing the decision himself and was deemed the ponente. The Court rejected his justification that the 1997 reorganization and the need to reorient new justices caused the delay, noting that cases had been submitted for decision as far back as ten years before the reorganization. The Court also rejected his finger-pointing at an unnamed justice of the First Division, finding it frivolous and damaging to the Sandiganbayan's reputation. As primus inter pares, Garchitorena had the power to take up cases with his colleagues and should have taken responsibility upon himself if he truly sought to expeditiously dispose of the backlog.

• Adequacy of the Fine: The Court found the P20,000 fine nominal. In cases where trial court judges failed to decide even a single case within the 90-day period, the Court had imposed fines of P5,000. Given that Garchitorena's backlog involved hundreds of cases over many years, the P20,000 fine could not be deemed unfair or excessive.

• Mora decidendi reprobatur in lege — Delay in deciding cases is reprobated in law. The Court applied this maxim to hold that a judge who incurs delay in deciding cases is in peril of administrative sanctions, including removal from office, and that a judge worthy of the office ought to know this without need of separate formal notice.

• Duty to decide cases within 90 days from submission — Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. A case must be decided within ninety days from its submission for decision; failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and neglect of duty, detrimental to the honor and integrity of the office and in derogation of a speedy administration of justice. The Court held that even if Garchitorena believed the period was twelve months, he still had no excuse.

• Decision-making as the primordial duty of a judge — Decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities. No other matter—including administrative tasks such as reviewing vouchers, attending to incoming mail, or conferring with persons—can be more important than deciding cases. A judge cannot recuse himself from preparing decisions by pointing to preoccupation with other matters.

• Deemed ponente rule for unassigned cases — 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 the chairman fails to make the assignment, he shall be deemed to be the ponente. The designation of a ponente is not a difficult administrative task.

• Administrative lapse as inefficiency when blatant and repeated — An administrative lapse or error, done blatantly several times over a long period of time, constitutes inefficiency. The Court rejected the characterization of Garchitorena's consistent failure to assign ponentes over sixteen years as a mere "administrative lapse."

• Meaning of "noted" by the Court — The term "noted" means the Court has taken cognizance of an act or declaration without exercising judicious deliberation or rendering a decision on the matter; it does not imply agreement or approval. The Court applied this to clarify that its earlier "noting" of Garchitorena's comment in Sanchez vs. Sandiganbayan did not signify approval of his understanding of his functions.

• "A judge worthy of the office ought to know that he is in peril of administrative sanctions, including removal from office, the moment he incurs delay in deciding cases." — This passage articulates the ratio decidendi on the due process issue, establishing that formal notice of potential sanctions is not required because the peril of sanctions is inherent in the duty to decide cases promptly.

• "Decision-making is the most important duty of a member of the bench. No other matter can be more important than decision-making, certainly, not reviewing vouchers and attending to incoming mail." — This passage defines the hierarchical priority of judicial functions, establishing that administrative tasks cannot excuse a judge from the primordial duty of deciding cases.

• "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." — This passage establishes the deemed-ponente rule, a canonical formulation frequently cited in subsequent administrative cases involving judicial backlogs.

• "An administrative lapse or error, done blatantly several times over a long period of time, sixteen years of his tenure, constitutes inefficiency to say the least." — This passage articulates the standard for distinguishing a mere administrative lapse from actionable inefficiency, turning on the blatancy, frequency, and duration of the omission.

• Canson vs. Garchitorena, 370 Phil. 287 (1999) — The Court had previously admonished Garchitorena that any act depriving a party of the right to a just and speedy trial would be dealt with severely. Served as prior notice that delays would be sanctioned.
• Licaros vs. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 21, 2001 — The Court warned that Garchitorena was in danger of chastisement for delay, which forced the dismissal of charges against an accused for violation of the constitutional right to speedy disposition. Demonstrated prior notice of potential sanctions.
• Cadauan vs. Alivia, 344 SCRA 174 (2000) — Cited for the rule that failure to render a decision beyond the 90-day period constitutes gross inefficiency and neglect of duty, and for the proposition that a P5,000 fine was imposed for delay in a single case.
• Osmeña, Jr. vs. Secretary of Justice, 148-B Phil. 677 (1971) — Cited for the rule that the transfer of pre-selected cases to newly created courts could not be done, analogous to the improper unloading of submitted cases to newly appointed justices.
• Sulla vs. Ramos, 341 SCRA 157 (2000) — Cited for the proposition that delay in the disposition of cases erodes faith and confidence in the judiciary, and that failure to decide cases within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency subject to administrative sanction.
• Rivera vs. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880 (1997) — Cited for the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities.
• Sichangco vs. Board of Commissioners of Immigration, 94 SCRA 61 (1979) — Cited for the definition of "noted" as taking cognizance without judicious deliberation or decision, not implying agreement or approval.

• Rule 3.05, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct — Admonishes all judges to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. Applied to hold that failure to decide within 90 days from submission constitutes gross inefficiency and neglect of duty.
• Supreme Court Administrative Circular 10-94 — Applied to the Sandiganbayan, requiring that cases submitted for decision be decided within three months, not twelve months, from submission.
• Republic Act No. 7975 — Increased the number of divisions of the Sandiganbayan to five in 1995, with six new justices appointed in September 1997. The Court held that the creation of additional divisions was intended to cope with increasing caseloads, not to enable the Presiding Justice to unload submitted cases to the new divisions.
• Republic Act No. 5179 — The law creating the Circuit Criminal Courts, cited by analogy for the rule that transfer of pre-selected cases to newly created courts could not be done.
• Constitution — Right to Speedy Disposition of Cases — The Court invoked the constitutional right to speedy disposition of cases, noting that in Licaros vs. Sandiganbayan it had been forced to dismiss charges against an accused due to violation of this right caused by Garchitorena's delay.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Quisumbing, Buena, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concurred. Vitug and Panganiban, JJ., concurred in the result.