7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001

5/12/2018 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001 - slidepdf.com

http://slidepdf.com/reader/full/7c-64-delays-in-the-sb-am-no-sc-nov-28-2001 1/47

Republic of the PhilippinesSUPREME COURT

Manila

EN BANC

A. M. No. 00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001

RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN

R E S O L U T I O N

PARDO, J .:

The Case

Submitted to the Court for consideration is a resolution of the Board of Governors,Integrated Bar of the Philippines (hereafter, the IBP) recommending an inquiry into thecauses of delays in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of casespending before the Sandiganbayan.

The Antecedents

On July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim, transmitted to theCourt a Resolution1addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before theSandiganbayan (hereafter, the Resolution).2 We quote the Resolution in full:3

"WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll personsshall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-

judicial, or administrative bodies,"

"WHEREAS, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyersmandates that "[a] lawyer shall exert every effort and consider it his duty to assist in

the speedy and efficient administration of justice;"

"WHEREAS, it is the duty of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines to undertakemeasures to assist in the speedy disposition of cases pending before the variouscourts and tribunals;

"WHEREAS, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has received numerouscomplaints from its members about serious delays in the decision of cases and in



the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan;

"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 requires all RegionalTrial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal CircuitTrial Courts to submit to the Supreme Court a bi-annual report indicating the title of the case, its date of filing, the date of pre-trial in civil cases and arraignment incriminal cases, the date of initial trial, the date of last hearing and the date that thecase is submitted for decision, and to post, in a conspicuous place within itspremises, a monthly list of cases submitted for decision;

"WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not been madeapplicable to the Sandiganbayan;

"WHEREAS, considering that the Sandiganbayan is also a trial court, therequirements imposed upon trial courts by Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 should also be imposed upon the Sandiganbayan;

"NOW, THEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Board of Governors of theIntegrated Bar of the Philippines hereby resolves as follows:

"1. To recommend to the Supreme Court that Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 be made applicable to the Sandiganbayan in regard cases over which theSandiganbayan has original jurisdiction; and

"2. To recommend to the Supreme Court an inquiry into the causes of delay in theresolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases before theSandiganbayan for the purpose of enacting measures intended at avoiding such

delays.

"Done in Los Baños, Laguna, this 29th day of July, 2000."

On August 8, 2000, the Court required Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E.Garchitorena to comment on the letter of the IBP and to submit a list of all Sandiganbayancases pending decision, or with motion for reconsideration pending resolution, indicating thedates they were deemed submitted for decision or resolution.4

On September 27, 2000, complying with the order, Presiding Justice Francis E.Garchitorena submitted a report5(hereafter, the compliance) admitting a number of casessubmitted for decision and motion for reconsideration pending resolution before itsdivisions. We quote:

"CasesSubmitted

"For Decision

W/ Motions For Reconsideration

"1st Division 341 None



"2nd Division 5 None

"3rd Division 12 None

"4th Division 5 None

"5th Division 52 1

"Total 415"6

Thus, the Sandiganbayan has a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases for decisionremaining undecided long beyond the reglementary period to decide, with one casesubmitted as early as May 24, 1990,7 and motion for reconsideration which has remainedunresolved over thirty days from submission.8

On October 20, 2000, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitteda "schedule of cases submitted for decision, the schedule indicating the number of detainedprisoners, of which there are (were) none."9

On October 26, 2000, the IBP submitted its reply to the compliance stating: Fir st , that it wasnot in a position to comment on the accuracy of the compliance; nonetheless, it showed thatthere was much to be desired with regard to the expeditious disposition of cases,particularly in the Sandiganbayan's First Division, where cases submitted for decision since1990 remained unresolved. Second , the compliance did not include pending motions, and itis a fact that motions not resolved over a long period of time would suspend and delay thedisposition of a case. Thir d , since the Sandiganbayan is a trial court, it is required to submitthe same reports required of Regional Trial Courts. F our th, the Constitution10states that, "alllower collegiate courts" must decide or resolve cases or matters before it within twelve (12)months "from date of submission"; however, the Sandiganbayan, as a trial court, is requiredto resolve and decide cases within a reduced period of three (3) months like regional trialcourts, or at the most, six (6) months from date of submission.11

On November 21, 2000, the Court resolved to direct then Court Administrator Alfredo L.Benipayo (hereafter, the OCA) "to conduct a judicial audit of the Sandiganbayan, especiallyon the cases subject of this administrative matter, and to submit a report thereon not later than 31 December 2000."12

On December 4, 2000, in a letter addressed to the Chief Justice, Presiding Justice FrancisE. Garchitorena admitted that the First Division of the Sandiganbayan13 has a backlog of cases; that one case14 alone made the backlog of the First Division so large, involving 156cases but the same has been set for promulgation of decision on December 8, 2000, whichwould reduce the backlog by at least fifty percent (50%).15

On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum to theCourt16 stating that the causes of delay in the disposition of cases before theSandiganbayan are:17

(1) Failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation reportdespite the lapse of several years;



(2) Filing of numerous incidents such as Motion to Dismiss, Motion to Quash,Demurrer to Evidence, etc. that remain unresolved for years;

(3) Suspension of proceedings because of a pending petition for certiorari andprohibition with the Supreme Court;

(4) Cases remain unacted upon or have no further settings despite the lapse of considerable length of time; and

(5) Unloading of cases already submitted for decision even if the ponente is still inservice.

We consider ex mer o motu the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) asan administrative complaint against Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena for "seriousdelays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidentsbefore the different divisions of the Sandiganbayan," amounting to incompetence,inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and misconduct in office.

We find no need to conduct a formal investigation of the charges in view of the admission of Justice Francis E. Garchitorena in his compliance of October 20, 2000, that there areindeed hundreds of cases pending decision beyond the reglementary period of ninety (90)days from their submission. In one case, he not only admitted the delay in deciding the casebut took sole responsibility for such inaction for more than ten (10) years that constrainedthis Court to grant mandamus to dismiss the case against an accused to give substanceand meaning to his constitutional right to speedy trial.18

The Issues

The issues presented are the following: (1) What is the reglementary period within which theSandiganbayan must decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction? (2) Are there casessubmitted for decision remaining undecided by the Sandiganbayan or any of its divisionsbeyond the afore-stated reglementary period? (3) Is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the Sandiganbayan?19

The Cour t's Rul i ng

We resolve the issues presented i n seri at i m.

1. Peri od To Dec i de/Resolve Cases.-- There are two views. The first view is that from thetime a case is submitted for decision or resolution, the Sandiganbayan has twelve (12)months to decide or resolve it.20 The second view is that as a court with trial function, theSandiganbayan has three (3) months to decide the case from the date of submission for decision.21

Article VIII, Section 15 (1) and (2), of the 1987 Constitution provides:

"Sec. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must bedecided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission to the



Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for alllower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

"(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon thefiling of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or bythe court itself."22

The above provision does not apply to the Sandiganbayan. The provision refers to regular courts of lower collegiate level that in the present hierarchy applies only to the Court of

Appeals.23

The Sandiganbayan is a special court of the same level as the Court of Appeals andpossessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice,24 with functions of a trial court.25

Thus, the Sandiganbayan is not a regular court but a special one.26 The Sandiganbayanwas originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure.27 However, on March30, 1995, Congress repealed the Sandiganbayan's power to promulgate its own rules of

procedure28 and instead prescribed that the Rules of Court promulgated by the SupremeCourt shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed with the Sandiganbayan.29

"Special courts are judicial tribunals exercising limited jurisdiction over particular or specialized categories of actions. They are the Court of Tax Appeals, the Sandiganbayan,and the Shari'a Courts."30

Under Article VIII, Section 5 (5) of the Constitution "Rules of procedure of spec i al cour ts andquasi-judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court."

In his report, the Court Administrator would distinguish between cases which the

Sandiganbayan has cognizance of in its original jurisdiction,31

and cases which fall withinthe appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.32 The Court Administrator posits that sincein the first class of cases, the Sandiganbayan acts more as a trial court, then for thatclassification of cases, the three (3) month reglementary period applies. For the secondclass of cases, the Sandiganbayan has the twelve-month reglementary period for collegiatecourts.33 We do not agree.

The law creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 160634 is clear on this issue.35 It provides:

"Sec. 6. Max i mum peri od for ter mi nat i on of cases ± As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous untilterminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the datethe case was submitted for decision."

On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules,36 thus:37

"Sec. 3 Max i mum Peri od to Dec i de Cases ± The judgment or final order of a divisionof the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered w i thi n thr ee (3) months f r om the date thecase was submi tted for dec i si on (italics ours)."



Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3) monthperiod, not the twelve (12) month period, to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan.Furthermore, the Sandiganbayan presently sitting in five (5) divisions,38 functions as a trialcourt. The term "trial" is used in its broad sense, meaning, it allows introduction of evidenceby the parties in the cases before it.39 The Sandiganbayan, in original cases within its

jurisdiction, conducts trials, has the discretion to weigh the evidence of the parties, admitthe evidence it regards as credible and reject that which they consider perjurious or fabricated.40

Compl i ance w i th i ts Own Rules

In Depar tment of Ag r ari an Refor m Adjud i cat i on Boar d (DARAB) v. Cour t of Appeals,41 theCourt faulted the DARAB for violating its own rules of procedure. We reasoned that theDARAB does not have unfettered discretion to suspend its own rules. We stated that theDARAB "should have set the example of observance of orderly procedure." Otherwise, itwould render its own Revised Rules of Procedure uncertain and whose permanence wouldbe dependent upon the instability of its own whims and caprices.

Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec ,42 this Court held that the Commission on Elections oughtto be the first one to observe its own Rules. Its departure from its own rules constitutes"arrogance of power" tantamount to abuse. Such inconsistency denigrates public trust in itsobjectivity and dependability. The Court reminded the Comelec to be more judicious in itsactions and decisions and avoid imprudent volte-face moves that undermine the public'sfaith and confidence in it.

The r at i o dec i dend i in the afore-cited cases applies mutatis mutandis to the Sandiganbayan.The Sandiganbayan ought to be the first to observe its own rules. It cannot suspend itsrules, or except a case from its operation.

2. U ndec i ded Cases Beyond the Reglementar y Peri od .-- We find that the Sandiganbayanhas several cases undecided beyond the reglementary period set by the statutes and itsown rules, some as long as more than ten (10) years ago.

According to the compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan, three hundred and forty one(341) cases were submitted for decision but were undecided as of September 15, 2000. Anumber of the cases were submitted for decision as far back as mor e than ten (10) year sago. As of September 15, 2000, the following cases43 had not been decided:44

First Division

Case Title Case No. Date Submittedfor Decision

(1) People v. Pañares 12127 May 24, 1990

(2) People v. Gabriel Duero 11999 December 11,1990

(3) People v. Rhiza Monterozo 133533 December 14,1990



(4) People v. Zenon R. Perez 13353 January 7, 1991

(5) People v. Bernardo B. Dayao,Jr.

12305-12306 February 7, 1991

(6) People v. Melquiades Ribo 13521 May 7, 1991

(7) People v. Carlos Benitez 12102 June 19, 1991(8) People v. Salvador P. Nopre, et.al.

11156-11160 August 9, 1991

(9) People v. Delfina A. Letegio 12289 August 28, 1991

(10) People v. Rodolfo A. Lasquite 13618 August 28, 1991

(11) People v. PotencianaEvangelista

13679-13680 September 3,1991

(12) People v. Ramon N. Guico, Jr.et. al

16516 December 2,1991

(13) People v. Ruperto N. Solares 16239 January 10, 1992

(14) People v. Socorro Alto 13708 March 9, 1992

(15) People v. Tomas Baguio 130151 March 11, 1992

(16) People v. Felipa D. de Veyra 13672 April 13, 1992

(17) People v. Felicidad Tabang 12139 July 23, 1992

(18) People v. Jose S. Buguiña 14227 September 9,1992

(19) People v. Eleno T. Regidor, etal.

13689-13695 January 6, 1993

(20) People v. Serafin Unilongo 14411 February 2, 1993

(21) People v. Manuel Parale, et al. 15168 June 21, 1993

(22) People v. Robert P. Wa-acon 14375 June 21, 1993

(23) People v. Linda J. Necessito 13668 July 13, 1993

(24) People v. Simon Flores 16946 August 4, 1993

(25) People v. Alejandro F. Buccat 14986 August 31, 1993

(26) People v. Irma Collera Monge 15301 March 9, 1994

(27) People v. Melencio F. Ilajas 9977 May 10, 1994

(28) People v. Buenaventura Q.Sindac, et al.

13747-13748 August 19, 1994

(29) People v. Jesus A. Bravo 17514 August 24, 1994

(30) People v. Raul S. Tello 15006 November 15,1994

(31) People v. Celso N. Jacinto 14975 January 10, 1995

(32) People v. Mayor Antonio AbadSantos, et al.

17670 January 24, 1995



(33) People v. Lamberto R. Te 20588 February 14,1995

(34) People v. Ale Francisco 21020 July 18, 1995

(35) People v. Dir. Felix R.Gonzales, et al.

13563 July 25, 1995

(36) People v. Mayor AdelinaGabatan, et al.

14324 January 3, 1996

(37) People v. Victoria Posadas- Adona

17202 January 4, 1996

(38) People v. Roberto EstanislaoChang, et al.

16854 January 22, 1996

(39) People v. Godofredo Yambao,et al.

16927-16928 March 13, 1996

(40) People v. Honesto G. Encina 13171 April 26, 1996

(41) People v. Pablito Rodriguez 13971 May 10, 1996(42) People v. Leandro A. Suller 17759 June 28, 1996

(43) People v. Trinidad M. Valdez 16695 August 26, 1996

(44) People v. Vivencio B. Patagoc 19651 January 27, 1997

(45) People v. Engr. Antonio B.Laguador

14195 March 31, 1997

(46) People v. Paterno C. Belciña,Jr.

16583-16585 March 31, 1997

(47) People v. SPO3 Serafin V.Reyes

21608 March 31, 1997

(48) People v. Mayor Samuel F.Bueser, et al.

22195-22196 March 31, 1997

(49) People v. Romeo C.Monteclaro

14223 May 6, 1997

(50) People v. Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo 20948-20949 October 17, 1997

(51) People v. Aniceto M.Sobrepeña

23324 October 27, 1997

(52) People v. Marietta T. Caugma,et al.

17001 November 26,1997

(53) People v. Mayor MelitonGeronimo, et al.

19708 February 23,1998

(54) People v. Fernando Miguel, etal.

17600 April 7, 1998

(55) People v. Rogelio A. Aniversario

17601 April 7, 1998

(56) People v. Corazon Gammad 9812-9967 May 8, 1998



Leaño

(57) People v. Teresita S. Lazaro 17901 June 8, 1998

(58) People v. Brig. Gen.Raymundo Jarque, et al.

20688 October 19, 1998

(59) People v. Pros. FiloteaEstorninos 23509 October 19, 1998

(60) People v. Orlando Mina 19534-19545 October 20, 1998

(61) People v. Vice Gov. Milagros A. Balgos

23042 October 20, 1998

(62) People v. Ceferino Paredes,Jr., et al.

18857 November 17,1998

(63) People v. Brig. Gen. RayundoJarque, et al.

18696 January 15, 1999

(64) People v. Mayor Agustin R.

Escaño, Jr.

23336 January 15, 1999

(65) People v. Mayor Edgar V.Teves, et al.

23374 January 15, 1999

(66) People v. C/Supt. Alfonso T.Clemente, et al.

22832 January 29, 1999

(67) People v. Dominica Santos 19059-19063 February 18,1999

(68) People v. Edith G. Tico 23273 April 20, 1999

(69) People v. Sec. Hilarion J.Ramiro, et al.

23511 August 6, 1999

(70) People v. Timoteo A. Garcia,et al.

24042-24098 August 6, 1999

(71) People v. Mayor Jeceju L.Manaay

24402 August 6, 1999

(72) People v. Dir. RosalindaMajarais, et al.

24355 August 18, 1999

(73) People v. Victor S. Limlingan 24281 August 13, 1999

(74) People v. Nestor S. Castillo, etal.

24631 August 31, 1999

(75) People v. Apolinar Candelaria 22145 September 6,1999

(76) People v. Bernardo BilloteResoso

19773-19779 October 11, 1999

(77) People v. Atty. Alfredo FordanRellora, et al.

24433-24434 October 11, 1999

(78) People v. Faustino Balacuit 98 December 22,1999



(79) People v. Mayor Bernardino Alcaria, Jr., et al.

23418-23423 January 6, 2000

(80) People v. Joel R. Lachica, etal.

24319-24329 January 6, 2000

(81) People v. Jose Micabalo, et al. 24531-24534 April 27, 2000

(82) People v. Mayor Eduardo Alarilla

23069 May 29, 2000

(83) People v. Pros. Nilo M.Sarsaba, et al.

23323 May 29, 2000

(84) People v. Philip G. Zamora 24150 May 29, 2000

Second Division*

Case Title Case No.Date Submitted

for Decision

(1) People v. Marcelino Cordova, et

al.

18435 August 11, 2000

(2) People v. Benjamin T. Damian 22858 August 11, 2000

(3)People v. Lino L. Labis, et al. 22398 July 18, 2000

(4)People v. Alfredo Sarmiento, etal.

24407-24408 August 11, 2000

Third Division**


for Decision

(1) People v. Sergia Zoleta A/R # 016 November 16,1999

(2) People v. Manuel Solon YTenchaves

A/R # 029 December 9,1999

(3) People v. Eliseo L. Ruiz 13861-13863 April 6, 2000

(4) People v. Manuel R. Galvez, etal.

13889 September 30,1999

(5) People v. Tolentino Mendoza, etal.

16756 August 28, 1999

(6) People v. Rodrigo Villas 19563 April 6, 2000

(7) People v. Ernesto Vargas 19574 April 6, 2000

(8) People v. Ernesto, Vargas, et al. 20053 April 6, 2000

(9) People v. Marcelo T. Abrenica,et al.

23522 July 6, 2000

(10) People v. Florencio Garay, etal.

25657 May 5, 2000

Fourth Division***

Case Title Case No. Date Submitted



for Decision

(1) People v. Jaime Alos, et al. 17664 August 31, 1999

(2) People v. Antonio R. De Vera 23366 November 26,1999

(3) People v. Aurora Mantele 24841-42 May 9, 2000(4) People v. Olegario Clarin, Jr., etal.

25198 July 12, 2000

Fifth Division****


for Decision

(1) People v. Nestor A. Pablo 13344 January 16, 1998

(2) People v. Hernand D. Dabalus,et al.

14397 January 13, 1999

(3) People v. Eduardo Pilapil 16672 March 23, 2000

(4) People v. P/Sgt. NazarioMarifosque

17030 April 16, 1998

(5) People v. Ignacio B. Bueno 17055 September 12,1995

(6) People v. Corazon G. Garlit 17072 March 31, 1997

(7) People v. Mayor RufoPabelonia, et al.

17538 November 14,1995

(8) People v. Enrique B. Lenon, etal.

17617 March 13, 1996

(9) People v. Constancio Bonite, etal. 17618-17619 May 1, 1995

(10) People v. Jesus Villanueva 17884 January 9, 1996

(11) People v. Ricardo T. Liwanag,et al.

18008 March 9, 1998

(12) People v. Ma. Lourdes L.Falcon

18036 January 18, 1995

(13) People v. Luis D. Montero, etal.

18684 July 24, 1998

(14) People v. Roel D. Morales 18699 December 22,

1995(15) People v. Diosdado T. Gulle 18759 October 18, 1995

(16) People v. Benjamin Sapitula,et al.

18785 August 31, 1995

(17) People v. Danilo R. Santos, etal.

18932 November 4,1997

(18) People v. Pat. Danilo Marañon 19039 May 24, 1995



(19) People v. Romeo Cabando, etal.

19378-19379 May 27, 1996

(20) People v. SPO2 RodolfoBurbos

19593 July 6, 1998

(21) People v. Guillermo M. Viray,

et al.

19614 August 31, 1998

(22) People v. Mayor BonifacioBalahay

20427 November 5,1999

(23) People v. Enrique Sy, et al. 20487 December 17,1998

(24) People v. PO2 Manuel L. Bien 20648-20649 March 31, 1998

(25) People v. Felipe L. Laodenio 23066 September 28,1999

(26) People v. Mayor Walfrido A.Siasico

23427 January 16, 1998

The Sandiganbayan is a special court created "in an effort to maintain honesty andefficiency in the bureaucracy, weed out misfits and undesirables in the government andeventually stamp out graft and corruption."45 We have held consistently that a delay of three(3) years in deciding a si ngle case is inexcusably long.46 We can not accept the excuses of Presiding Justice Sandiganbayan Francis E. Garchitorena that the court was reorganized in1997; that the new justices had to undergo an orientation and that the Sandiganbayanrelocated to its present premises which required the packing and crating of records; andthat some boxes were still unopened.47

We likewise find unacceptable Presiding Justice Garchitorena's excuse that one case

alone48 comprises more that fifty percent (50%) of the First Division's backlog and that thesame has been set for promulgation on December 8, 2000.49 As we said, a delay in a si nglecase cannot be tolerated, " par a muest r a, basta un boton." (for an example, one buttonsuffices). It is admitted that there are several other cases submitted for decision as far backas ten (10) years ago that have remained undecided by the First Division, of which JusticeGarchitorena is presiding justice and chairman. Indeed, there is even one case, which is asimple motion to withdraw the information filed by the prosecutor. This has remainedunresolved for more than seven (7) years (since 1994).50 The compliance submitted by theSandiganbayan presiding justice incriminates him. The memorandum submitted by theCourt 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 thatwere still pending promulgation51 before the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are:52

First Division

Case Number Date Submitted Case Number Date Submitted

1. 11156 8/9/91 99. 23336 9/4/97

2. 11157 8/9/91 100. 23374 12/17/98



3. 11158 8/9/91 101. 23418 10/15/99

4. 11159 8/9/91 102. 23419 10/15/99

5. 11160 8/9/91 103. 23420 10/15/99

6. 11999 12/10/90 104. 23421 10/15/99

7. 12102 7/1/91 105. 23422 10/15/998. 12127 2/12/90 106. 23423 10/15/99

9. 12139 6/10/92 107. 23509 9/5/98

10. 12289 8/28/91 108. 23511 4/23/99

11. 12305 2/7/91 109. 23540 10/15/99

12. 12306 2/7/91 110. 24042 4/28/99

13. 13015 3/2/92 111. 24043 4/28/99

14. 13171 11/16/95 112. 24044 4/28/99

15. 13353 10/6/90 113. 24045 4/28/99

16. 13521 12/12/99 114. 24046 4/28/99

17. 13563 7/4/95 115. 24047 4/28/99

18. 13618 7/14/91 116. 24048 4/28/99

19. 13668 6/13/93 117. 24049 4/28/99

20. 13672 3/5/92 118. 24050 4/28/99

21. 13679 8/6/91 119. 24051 4/28/99

22. 13680 8/6/91 120. 24052 4/28/99

23. 13689 11/14/92 121. 24053 4/28/99

24. 13690 11/14/92 122. 24054 4/28/9925. 13691 11/14/92 123. 24055 4/28/99

26. 13692 11/14/92 124. 24056 4/28/99

27. 13693 11/14/92 125. 24057 4/28/99

28. 13694 11/14/92 126. 24058 4/28/99

29. 13695 11/14/92 127. 24059 4/28/99

30. 13708 3/9/92 128. 24060 4/28/99

31. 13747 8/19/94 129. 24061 4/28/99

32. 13748 8/19/94 130. 24062 4/28/99

33. 13971 3/12/95 131. 24063 4/28/99

34. 14223 3/7/97 132. 24064 4/28/99

35. 14227 9/5/92 133. 24065 4/28/99

36. 14230 11/30/90 134. 24066 4/28/99

37. 14287 7/3/94 135. 24067 4/28/99

38. 14324 11/5/95 136. 24068 4/28/99



39. 14375 5/22/95 137. 24069 4/28/99

40. 14411 1/24/93 138. 24070 4/28/99

41. 14975 9/29/94 139. 24071 4/28/99

42. 14986 12/11/92 140. 24072 4/28/99

43. 15006 11/19/94 141. 24073 4/28/9944. 15168 3/25/93 142. 24074 4/28/99

45. 15301 3/16/94 143. 24075 4/28/99

46. 16239 12/26/91 144. 24076 4/28/99

47. 16516 11/19/91 145. 24077 4/28/99

48. 16583 8/13/96 146. 24078 4/28/99

49. 16584 8/13/96 147. 24079 4/28/99

50. 16585 8/13/96 148. 24080 4/28/99

51. 16695 8/15/96 149. 24081 4/28/99

52. 16854 1/15/96 150. 24082 4/28/99

53. 16927 12/17/95 151. 24083 4/28/99

54. 16928 12/17/95 152. 24084 4/28/99

55. 16946 8/4/93 153. 24085 4/28/99

56. 17001 9/4/97 154. 24086 4/28/99

57. 17278 5/2/94 155. 24087 4/28/99

58. 17447 9/6/94 156. 24088 4/28/99

59. 17448 9/6/94 157. 24089 4/28/99

60. 17514 8/19/94 158. 24090 4/28/9961. 17600 8/30/97 159. 24091 4/28/99

62. 17601 8/30/97 160. 24092 4/28/99

63. 17670 11/25/94 161. 24093 4/28/99

64. 17759 6/25/96 162. 24094 4/28/99

65. 17901 5/28/98 163. 24095 4/28/99

66. 18283 2/21/95 164. 24096 4/28/99

67. 18696 8/9/98 165. 24097 4/28/99

68. 18857 10/21/98 166. 24098 4/28/99

69. 19059 2/11/99 167. 24150 1/31/00

70. 19060 2/11/99 168. 24236 2/14/00

71. 19061 2/11/99 169. 24237 2/14/00

72. 19062 2/11/99 170. 24281 5/9/99

73. 19063 2/11/99 171. 24319 11/4/99

74. 19534 9/2/98 172. 24320 11/4/99



75. 19535 9/2/98 173. 24321 11/4/99

76. 19651 11/15/96 174. 24322 11/4/99

77. 19708 8/25/98 175. 24323 11/4/99

78. 19773 5/21/99 176. 24324 11/4/99

79. 19774 5/21/99 177. 24325 11/4/9980. 19775 5/21/99 178. 24326 11/4/99

81. 19976 5/21/99 179. 24327 11/4/99

82. 19977 5/21/99 180. 24328 11/4/99

83. 19978 5/21/99 181. 24329 11/4/99

84. 19979 5/21/99 182. 24339 10/20/00

85. 20588 2/14/95 183. 24355 2/18/99

86. 20688 7/9/98 184. 24395 7/13/99

87. 20948 10/9/97 185. 24402 6/17/99

88. 20949 10/9/97 186. 24433 9/6/99

89. 21020 7/4/95 187. 24434 9/6/99

90. 22145 7/7/99 188. 24531 12/16/99

91. 22195 6/14/96 189. 24532 12/16/99

92. 22196 6/14/96 190. 24533 12/16/99

93. 22832 10/21/98 191. 24534 12/16/99

94. 23042 8/27/98 192. 24631 8/9/99

95. 23146 11/13/00 193. 24768 7/8/00

96. 23273 4/19/99 194. 6672 7/11/9097. 23323 3/23/00 195. 9977 5/10/94

98. 23324 8/3/97

Civil Case

1. 0112 1/11/92

2. 0116 10/16/91

3. 0156 3/14/97

Second Division

Case No. Date Submitted

Criminal Case

1. 19542 4/16/99

2. 19004 9/10/96

3. 22934 10/14/00

4. 20483 8/28/96

5. 20484 8/28/96



6. 23529 10/23/00

7. 23530 10/23/00

8. 23338 12/2/99

9. 18786 11/28/00

10. 19686 07/2/9711. 184403 12/4/98

12. 184404 12/4/98

13. 184405 12/4/98

14. 184406 12/4/98

15. 184407 12/4/98

16. 184408 12/4/98

17. 184409 12/4/98

18. 184410 12/4/98

19. 184411 12/4/98

20. 184412 12/4/98

21. 184413 12/4/98

22. 184414 12/4/98

23. 184415 12/4/98

24. 184416 12/4/98

25. 184417 12/4/98

26. 13827 8/30/00

27. 13828 8/30/0028. 13829 8/30/00

29. 13830 8/30/00

30. 13831 8/30/00

31. 13832 8/30/00

32. 18965 11/30/00

33. 19848 3/28/96

34. 20765 8/30/96

35. 20816 3/11/98

36. 19692 8/27/00

37. 19693 8/27/00

38. 19694 8/27/00

39. 19695 8/27/00

40. 19696 8/27/00

41. 19697 8/27/00



42. 19698 8/27/00

43. 19699 8/27/00

44. 19700 8/27/00

45. 19701 8/27/00

46. 19702 8/27/0047. 19703 8/27/00

48. 19704 8/27/00

49. 19705 8/27/00

50. 19706 8/27/00

51. 19707 8/27/00

52. 23262 10/11/00

53. AR#035 12/9/00

54. 24994 8/17/00

55. 21097 12/13/00

56. 20660 12/20/00

57. 23111 11/27/00

58. 24407 7/27/00

59. 24408 7/27/00

60. 18435 3/21/00

61. 22858 8/4/00

62. 22976 5/4/99

Civil Case

1. 0171 7/10/00

Third Division

Case Number Date Submitted

1. SCA/005 12/18/00

2. A/R 016 8/5/99

3. A/R 029 10/2/00

4. 487 4/8/98

5. 488 4/8/986.489 4/8/98

7.490 4/8/98

8.491 4/8/98

9.11794 6/10/00

10.13861 4/6/00

11. 13862 4/6/00



12. 13863 4/6/00

13. 13889 3/25/99

14. 16756 8/25/99

15. 17532 12/11/00

16. 18867 10/5/0017. 18868 10/5/00

18. 18869 10/5/00

19. 18870 10/5/00

20. 18871 10/5/00

21. 18872 10/5/00

22. 19182 4/6/00

23. 19563 4/6/00

24. 19574 4/6/00

25. 19622 4/6/00

26. 19623 4/6/00

27. 19624 4/6/00

28. 20053 4/6/00

29. 20054 4/6/00

30. 20271 12/18/00

31. 22143 12/18/00

32. 23014 9/23/00

33. 23522 7/6/0034. 23699 3/22/00

35. 23700 3/22/00

36. 23701 3/22/00

37. 23802 9/10/00

38. 23803 9/10/00

39. 24153 12/18/00

40. 24697 9/10/00

41. 24698 9/10/00

42. 24741 12/7/00

43. 24779 10/28/00

44. 24780 10/28/00

45. 24781 10/28/00

46. 25657 5/5/00

Fourth Division



Case No. Date Submitted

1. 11960 09/21/98

2. 17664 01/29/98

3. 13036 02/22/99

4. 13037 02/22/995. 13593 05/21/96

6. 13594 05/21/96

7. 13757 03/21/97

8. 14380 02/14/95

9. 16809 03/26/00

10. 17015 06/06/94

11. 17016 06/06/94

12. 17140 06/13/96

13. 17141 06/13/96

14. 17209 12/27/96

15. 17805 02/15/00

16. 17806 02/15/00

17. 17809 02/15/00

18. 17856 04/02/00

19. 18005 05/07/96

20. 18006 05/07/96

21. 18257 09/22/9722. 18894 11/17/00

23. 18895 11/17/00

24. 18896 11/17/00

25. 18900 10/28/00

26. 18935 06/16/00

27. 18936 06/16/00

28. 18937 06/16/00

29. 19567 05/21/96

30. 20338 05/19/97

31. 20469 07/07/00

32. 20470 07/07/00

33. 20471 07/07/00

34. 20472 07/07/00

35. 20473 07/07/00



36. 20474 07/07/00

37. 20475 07/07/00

38. 20476 07/07/00

39. 20664 06/29/96

40. 20685 02/18/0041. 20828 09/13/00

42. 21093 08/07/99

43. 21131 08/04/96

44. 21778 09/29/97

45. 21779 09/29/97

46. 21780 09/29/97

47. 22891 03/02/00

48. 22892 03/02/00

49. 23007 05/24/99

50. 23058 04/27/00

51. 23059 04/27/00

52. 23060 04/27/00

53. 23061 04/27/00

54. 23062 04/27/00

55. 23366 03/28/99

56. 23415 05/25/00

57. 23534 12/15/0058. 23708 09/27/00

59. 24447 09/18/00

60. 24448 09/18/00

61. 24464 07/26/00

62. 24465 07/26/00

63. 24742 10/10/00

64. 24841 03/22/00

65. 24842 03/22/00

66. 24851 10/29/00

67. 25198 05/31/00

68. 25389 09/26/00

69. 25543 12/27/00

70. 25658 07/28/00

Fifth Division




Criminal Cases

1. 14397 1/4/99

2. 16672 2/13/00

3. 17030 2/19/984. 17826 12/9/00

5. 17827 12/9/00

6. 18478 8/21/00

7. 18684 5/29/98

8. 18880 12/6/00

9. 19510 12/4/00

10. 19511 12/4/00

11. 19512 12/4/00

12. 19593 6/5/98

13. 19614 7/31/98

14. 19668 7/26/98

15. 20194 1/8/01

16. 20427 11/3/99

17. 20648 1/4/98

18. 20649 1/4/98

19. 20694 3/11/98

20. 21882 8/12/0021. 22184 12/16/00

22. 22873 12/4/99

23. 22926 11/13/00

24. 23066 8/16/99

25. 23319 9/30/00

26. 23450 9/16/00

27. 23515 1/29/00

28. 24155 11/30/00

29. 24379 8/27/00

30. 24759 5/5/00

31. 24858 12/28/00

We find that Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena failed to devise an efficient recordingand filing system to enable him to monitor the flow of cases and to manage their speedyand timely disposition. This is his duty on which he failed.53



Memor andum of the Cour t Admi ni st r ator

On November 14, 2001, the Court required the Office of the Court Administrator 54 to updateits 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 reportshows that to this day, several cases that were reported pending by the Sandiganbayan onSeptember 26, 2000, and likewise reported undecided by the OCA on January 26, 2001,have not been decided/resolved. We quote the compliance report:56

First Division

Case Number DateSubmitted

Ponente Assigned

Reason for NotDeciding Case

194. 11999 12/10/90 Garchitorena Under study,submitted before the

reorganization195. 12102 7/1/91 Garchitorena Under study,

submitted before thereorganization

196. 12127 2/12/90 Not reported; unaccounted for bySandiganbayan report

197. 12139 6/10/92 Castaneda* Under studysubmitted before thereorganization

198. 12289 8/28/91 Castaneda Under study


199. 12305-06 2/7/91 Castaneda Under studysubmitted before thereorganization

200. 13015 3/2/92 Garchitorena Under studysubmitted before thereorganization

201. 13171 11/16/95 Castaneda Under studysubmitted before thereorganization



204. 13563 7/4/95 Garchitorena Under study








209. 13689-95 11/14/92 Castaneda Under study





213. 14223 3/7/97 Death of accused is unconfirmed anddismissal of the case was held inabeyance. (Ong, J.)*






218. 14375 5/22/95 Castaneda Under studysubmitted before the



reorganization






223. 15168 3/25/93 Castaneda Under studysubmitted before the

reorganization224. 15301 3/16/94 Castaneda Under study







230. 16927-28 12/17/95 Castaneda Under studysubmitted before the

reorganization


232. 17001 9/4/97 Not yetassigned

233. 17278 5/2/94 Death of accused is unconfirmed and



dismissal of the case was held inabeyance. (Ong, J.)


235. 17601 8/30/97 Not yet

assigned

236. 17759 6/25/96 Ong Decided and set for promulgation




240. 19059-63 2/11/99 Not yetassigned

241. 19534-35 9/2/98 Not yetassigned


243. 19773-79 5/21/99 Not yetassigned




247. 21020 7/4/95 Ong Set for Promulgationon November 27,2001


249. 22195-96 6/14/96 Castaneda Under study,submitted before thereorganization








255. 23324 8/3/97 Not yet

assigned



258. 23418-23 10/15/99 Not yetassigned




262. 24042-98 4/28/99 Ong Set for Promulgationon November 27,2001


264. 24236-37 2/14/00 Not yetassigned


266. 24319-29 11/4/99 Not yetassigned

267.24319-29 11/4/99 Not reported; unaccounted for bySandiganbayan report


269.24395 7/13/99 Not reported; unaccounted for bySandiganbayan report


271. 24433-34 9/6/99 Not yetassigned

272. 24531-34 12/16/99 Not yetassigned





275. 6672 7/11/90 Garchitorena Under Study, before

the reorganization

276. 9977 5/10/94 Garchitorena Under Study, beforethe reorganization




Summar y/Tally

Cases Assigned toGarchitorena, PJ.

9

Cases Assigned toCastaneda, J.

42

Cases Assigned to Ong, J. 5

Cases not yet assigned 73

Cases not accounted for or reported

9

Total 138

Second Division


Ponente Assigned


63. 19542 4/16/99 For retaking of testimony due toincomplete TSN

64. 13827-32 8/30/00 Victorino For promulgation

65. 18965 11/30/00 For retaking of testimony due toincomplete TSN

Third Division


Ponente Assigned


47. SCA/005 12/18/00 Ilarde --

48. A/R 029 10/2/00 Illarde

49. 487-491 4/8/98 With pending demurrer to evidence,submitted, 01/26/01 re Submitted,03/20/01



50. 11794 6/10/00 De Castro --

51. 17532 12/11/00 Ilarde --

52. 18867-72 10/5/00 Pending trial per order dated 08/17/00

53. 19182 4/6/00 Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97

54. 19563 4/6/00 No Assignment --55. 19574 4/6/00 No Assignment --

56. 19622-24 4/6/00 Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97

57. 20053-54 4/6/00 Not with the 3rd Division

58. 20271 12/18/00 Illarde --

59. 22143 12/18/00 De Castro --

60. 23014 9/23/00 De Castro --

61. 23699-701 3/22/00 Ilarde --

62. 23802-03 9/10/00 No Assignment --

63. 24153 12/18/00 No Assignment --

64. 24697-98 9/10/00 Ilarde --

65. 24741 12/7/00 De Castro --

66. 24779-81 10/28/00 No Assignment --

67. 25657 5/5/00 With Defense pending motion for there-examination of the Information andthe parties' affidavits, etc. Order dated08/31/01

Summar y/Tally

Cases Assigned to Illarde, J. 9

Cases Assigned to DeCastro, J.

4

Cases not yet assigned 8

Others 18

Total 39

Fourth Division**


Ponente Assigned


71. 11960 09/21/98 Draft of decision penned by J. Nario inview of the dissenting opinion of oneJustice was referred to a Division of five (5) composed of Nario, Palattao,Ferrer, Badoy, Jr. and De Castro, JJ.

72. 16809 03/26/00 Palattao --

73. 23058-62 04/27/00 Nario --



74. 25389 09/26/00 Nario --

Fifth Division


Ponente Assigned


32. 14397 1/4/99 Badoy, Jr. Inherited case/lackof personnel



35. 18478 8/21/00 Estrada Inherited case/lackof personnel



38. 19510-12 12/4/00 Estrada Inherited case/lackof personnel



41. 20194 1/8/01 Chico-Nazario Complicated Issues

42. 20427 11/3/99 Badoy, Jr. Inherited case/lack

of personnel43. 20648-49 1/4/98 Badoy, Jr. Inherited case/lack

of personnel

44. 20694 3/11/98 Estrada Inherited case/lackof personnel

45. 22926 11/13/00 No report, Unaccounted for by theSandiganbayan report

46. 23066 8/16/99 Badoy, Jr. Not yet due

47. 24155 11/30/00 Estrada

48. 24379 8/27/00 Estrada Draft decisionreleased 7/31/01

Summar y/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. Appl i cabi l i ty of SC Adm. C ir cular No. 10-94.-- Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 appliesto the Sandiganbayan.

Administrative Circular 10-9457 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of thecases 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 lastweek of August of each year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate ona horizontal column the following data:

"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 haspersonally undertaken an inventory of the pending cases in his/her court; that he/shehas examined each case record and initialled the last page thereof. The judge shallindicate 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 Case

DateFiled

Pretrial/ArraignmentInitial

Hearing

Date of Last

Hearing

Datesubmitted

for Decision

"CERTIFICATION:

"I hereby certify that on (Date/Dates___), I personally conducted a physical inventoryof pending cases in the docket of this court, that I personally examined the recordsof each case and initialled the last page thereof, and I certify that the results of theinventory 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.

Mor a Dec i dend i

We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000:59

"This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) todecide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is

justice denied. Dec i si on mak i ng i s the pri mor d i al and most i mpor tant duty of themember of the bench.60 Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch.Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency61 that warrants disciplinary

sanction, including fine,

62

suspension

63

and even dismissal.

64

Ther ule pa

r t i cula

r ly appl i es to just i ces of the Sand i ganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode

the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bringit 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 againstgraft (italics ours)."

In Yuchengco v. Republ i c ,66 we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice.We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and control itsprocesses and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan asthe nation's anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for graft, uphold the rightof 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 andthird divisions of the Sandiganbayan of unloading cases to other divisions despite the factthat these cases have been submitted for decision before them. We cite relevant portions of the memorandum:67



Cases Submi tted for Dec i si on When U nloaded to the F our th Di v i si on

Case No. T i tle of the Case

Di v i si onwher ecase

ori g i nated

DateSubmi tted

for

Dec i si on

1) 17015 PP vs. Raul Zapatos 3rd 06/06/94

2) 17016 PP vs. Raul Zapatos 3rd 06/06/94

3) 14380 PP vs. Francisco Ramoran 3rd 02/14/95

4) 18005 PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac 3rd 05/07/96

5) 18006 PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac 3rd 05/07/96

6) 13593 PP vs. Dominador Meninguito 3rd 05/30/96



9) 17140 PP vs. Jose Café, et. al. 3rd 06/13/96

10) 17141 PP vs. Jose Café, et. al. 3rd 06/13/96

11) 20064 PP vs. Ben dela Pena 3rd 07/01/96

12) 21131 PP vs. Rufino Mamanguin 3rd 08/05/96

13) 17209 PP vs. Isidro Catapang 3rd 12/27/96

14) 13757 PP vs. Catalino Daganzo 3rd 03/21/97

15) 18257 PP vs. Zenaida Sazon 1st 09/22/97

Cases Submi tted for Dec i si on When U nloaded to the Fi fth Di v i si on


1. 10264 12/22/90

2. 13344 5/14/97

3. 16223 4/25/94

4. 16574 5/30/95

5. 16760 5/25/95

6. 16810 1/23/96

7. 17018 7/20/94

8. 17055 7/5/95

9. 17139 4/24/94

10. 17162 2/23/95

11. 17193 3/8/94

12. 17426 2/12/94

13. 17480 3/22/94



14. 17538 11/20/95

15. 17567 2/24/93

16. 17598 8/3/94

17. 17617 3/28/96

18. 17618 4/6/9519. 17619 4/6/95

20. 17640 6/12/95

21. 17661 12/15/94

22. 17666 8/25/97

23. 17884 11/12/95

24. 17902 4/16/95

25. 18008 9/15/97

26. 18423 1/15/96

27. 18687 9/30/94

28. 18759 10/12/95

29. 18785 7/13/95

30. 18932 4/20/97

31. 18988 10/25/95

32. 18999 12/21/95

33. 19039 5/6/95

34. 19378 4/17/96

35. 19379 4/17/9636. 19679 10/5/95

37. 19712 2/18/95

38. 19907 6/22/95

39. 20487 12/14/96

40. 20624 7/15/95

41. 23427 7/25/97

We suggest a review of the practice of unloading cases that greatly contributes to thebacklog of undecided cases. When a case has been heard and tried before a division of theSandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same division and no other must decide it as far aspracticable.

We further note that several cases which were earlier reported as undecided by theSandiganbayan and the OCA have been decided since the reports of September 26, 2000and January 26, 2001. Nonetheless, the delay in deciding these cases is patent and meritsreprobation. 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 timea case is submitted for decision.68

In a case brought before this Court, Presiding Justice Garchitorena admitted fault and thatthe fault is exclusively his own, in failing to decide the case, though submitted for decisionas early as June 20, 1990.69 This case was not even included among pending cases in theSandiganbayan report of September 26, 2000.

The following cases were decided, though beyond the prescribed period:

Fir st Di v i si on

Case Number Submi tted for

Dec i si on Date of

P r omulgat i on Ponente

14195 March 31, 1997November 10,

2000Ong

21608 March 31, 1997

November 15,

2000 Ong

20588 February 14, 1998 January 12, 2001 Ong

19651 November 15, 1996 January 26, 2001 Ong

17670 November 25, 1994 January 26, 2001 Ong

17447-48 September 6, 1994February 22,

2001Ong

18283 February 21, 1995February 23,

2001Ong

17514 August 19, 1994 April 24, 2001 Ong

Second Di v i si on


Dec i si on Date of


18403-18417 December 4, 1998 February 2, 2001 Victorino

18435 August 11, 2000 March 26, 2001 Victorino

18786 November 28, 2000 March 28, 2001 Legaspi

19004September 10,

1996March 16, 2001 Victorino

19692-19707 August 27, 2000February 26,

2001

Sandoval

19848 March 28, 1996 January 29, 2001 Victorino

20483-20484 July 26, 1995 April 6, 2001 Victorino

20660 December 20, 2000 August 2, 2001 Legaspi

20765 August 30, 1996February 23,

2001Victorino

20816 March 11, 1998 January 25, 2001 Victorino



21097 December 13, 2000 June 15, 2001 Victorino

22858 August 11, 2000 January 31, 2001 Victorino

22934 October 14, 2000February 15,

2001Sandoval

22976 May 4, 1999 March 1, 2001 Sandoval23111 November 27, 2000 March 14, 2001 Sandoval

23262 October 11, 2000 May 16, 2001 Victorino

23338 December 2, 1999December 14,

2000Sandoval

23529-23530 October 23, 2000 March 28, 2001 Victorino

24407-24408 August 11, 2000 January 24, 2001 Legaspi

24994 August 17, 2000 May 30, 2001 Sandoval

AR#035 December 9, 2000 August 28, 2001 Legaspi

Thir d Di v i si on


Dec i si on Date of


A/R 016 November 16, 1999 January 26, 2001 Ilarde

13861-13863 April 6, 2000December 22,

2000DelRosario

13889September 30,

1999May 10, 2001 Ilarde

16756 August 28, 1999December 11,

2000DelRosario

23522 July 6, 2000 January 12, 2001DelRosario

F our th Di v i si on


Dec i si on Date of


17664 August 31, 1999 June 1, 2000 Pallatao

17016 June 6, 1994 March 27, 2001 Ferrer

17140-41 June 13, 1996 February 6, 2001 Nario

17209 December 27, 1996 April 30, 2001 Ferrer

17805-09;17814

February 15, 2000 October 10, 2001 Palattao

17856 April 2, 2000 June 25, 2001 Palattao

18005-06 May 7, 1996 May 18, 2001 Ferrer

18257September 22,

1997July 26, 2001 Ferrer

18894-96 November 17, 2000 March 20, 2001 Palattao



18900 October 28, 2000 March 23, 2001 Ferrer

18935-37 June 16, 2000 January 18, 2001 Palattao

19567 May 21, 1996 January 15, 2001 Ferrer

20338 May 19, 1997 February 9, 2001 Ferrer

20469 July 7, 2000 June 25, 2001 Palattao

13036-37 February 22, 1999February 28,

2001Ferrer

13593-94 May 21, 1996 January 15, 2001 Ferrer

20470-76 July 7, 2000 June 25, 2001 Palattao

20664 June 29, 1996February 20,

2001Ferrer

20685 February 18, 2000 March 2, 2001 Palattao

20828September 13,

2000October 8, 2001 Palattao

21093 August 7, 1999 January 15, 2001 Palattao

21131 August 4, 1996February 13,

2001Ferrer

21778-80September 29,

1997June 21, 2001 Ferrer

22891-92 March 2, 2000December 13,

2000Ferrer

23007 May 24, 1999 March 14, 2000 Ferrer

13757 March 21, 1997 July 2, 2001 Ferrer

14380 February 14, 1995 April 23, 2001 Ferrer

17015 June 6, 1994 March 27, 2001 Ferrer

23366 November 26, 1999 October 29, 2001 Ferrer

23415 May 25, 2000 May 28, 2001 Palattao

23534 December 15, 2000February 28,

2001Palattao

23708September 27,

2000September 10,

2001Nario

24464-65 July 26, 2000 June 26, 2001 Nario

24742 October 10, 2000 March 22, 2001 Ferrer

24841-42 May 9, 2000 March 7, 2001 Ferrer

25198 July 12, 2000 February 6, 2001 Nario

25543 December 27, 2000February 26,

2001Palattao

25658 July 28, 2000 July 20, 2001 Palattao



24447-48September 18,

2000December 7,

2001Palattao

Fi fth Di v i si on

CaseNumber

Submi tted for Dec i si on

Date of P r omulgat i on

Ponente

17826-17827

December 9, 2000 March 28, 2001Chico-Nazario

19668 July 26, 1998 February 9, 2001 Badoy, Jr.

21882 August 12, 2000 July 25, 2001Chico-Nazario

22184 December 16, 2000 May 21, 2001Chico-Nazario


23319 September 30,2000

April 23, 2001 Chico-Nazario

23450September 16,

2000March 16, 2001

Chico-Nazario

23515 January 29, 2000 May 28, 2001Cortez-Estrada

24759 May 5, 2000 July 10, 2001Cortez-Estrada


Rel i ef of P r esi d i ng Just i ce

At this juncture, the Court cites the case of Canson v. Gar chi tor ena.70 In that case, weadmonished 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 CriminalCases Nos. 23047-23057 to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, depriving complainantof 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 thedecision cautioned respondent justice that "a repetition of the same or similar act in thefuture shall be dealt with more severely."71

Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena sits as the Chairman, First Division, with abacklog 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 backlogof undecided cases. This is not correct. It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and theChairmen 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 bethe ponente.

The Constitution provides that a case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolutionupon 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 SupremeCourt provided that "A case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of theevidence 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 withoutmemoranda; in case the court requires or allows its filing, the case shall be consideredsubmitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the periodto do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a validreason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case waspreviously heard by another judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall havethe full period of ninety (90) days from the completion of the transcripts within which todecide the same."73 The designation of a ponente to a case is not a difficult administrativetask.

Administrative sanctions must be imposed. "Mor a r epr obatur i n lege."74 Again, we reiteratethe principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions andresponsibilities.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 dutyand inefficiency.76 As we said in Canson,77 unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving acase amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into d i sr epute, eroding thepublic 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 candevote himself full t i me to decision-making until his backlog is cleared. He shall finish thisassignment 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 si ngle case within theninety (90) day period, imposed a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to theequivalent 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 decisionbefore 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 theFirst Division.80 Even in the updated report, there are one hundred thirty eight (138) casesstill undecided in the First Division.

In fact, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that he has a backlog.81 Heclaimed that one (1) case alone comprises fifty percent (50%) of the backlog. We find thisclaim exaggerated. We cannot accept that a backlog of three hundred forty one (341) casesin 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. Thecases referred to were consolidated as Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Cor azonGammad-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 notbeen resolved to this date.82 The First Division has only thirty (30) days from submission toresolve the same. It is now ten (10) months from submission. The exped i ente and themotion were transmitted to the ponente, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, on thatdate, 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 undecidedsubmitted long ago. For almost one year, not one case was decided/resolved by thePresiding Justice himself.86

Dir ect i ve

WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:

(1) To IMPOSE on Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of twentythousand 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 andChairman, First Division, so that he may DEVOTE himself exclusively to DECISIONWRITING, until the backlog of cases assigned to him as well as cases not assignedto 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 FirstDivision i nter 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 dutiesof the office of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, until further orders from thisCourt.

(3) To DIRECT Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the associate justicesof the Sandiganbayan to decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for decisionas of this date, within three (3) months from their submission, and to resolve motionsfor 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 thereinwithin six (6) months from notice of this resolution.

(4) To ORDER the Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court AdministrativeCircular 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 rotationof justices among them and other matters leading to the internal operation of thecourt, and thereafter to submit the said internal rules to the Supreme Court for itsapproval.87

This directive is immediately executory.

SO ORDERED.

Dav i de, J r ., C.J., Bellosi llo, Melo, Puno, V i tug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Pangani ban,Qui sumbi ng, Ynar es-Sant i ago, Sandoval-Gut i err ez, and Car pi o, JJ., concur.Buena, J., on official leave.De Leon, J r ., J., see dissenting and concurring opinion.

Separate Opinions

DE LEON, Jr., J.: concurring and dissenting

I respectfully dissent from the resolution of Mr. Justice Bernardo P. Pardo insofar as itdeclares and rules that the judgment of any division of the Sandiganbayan shall berendered within three (3) months, and not within twelve (12) months, from the date the casewas submitted for decision.

The resolution cites Section 6 of P.D. No. 1606 which requires that the judgment of the

Sandiganbayan "shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case wassubmitted for decision". The said provision was apparently adopted by the Sandiganbayanin Section 3 of Rule XVIII of its Revised Rules of Procedure which was issued pursuant toP.D. No. 1606. The resolution also cites Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94,dated June 25, 1994 which is addressed "To: All T ri al Cour t Judges and Clerks of Courts,Branch Clerks of Courts" but not to Sand i ganbayan Just i ces or the Clerk of Court andDivision Clerks of Courts of the Sandiganbayan.

SECTION 15 (1) and (2) Article VII of the 1997 Constitution, however, provides that:

SECTION 15(1). All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitutionmust be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

(2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon thefiling of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or bythe Court itself.

xxx xxx xxx



The Supreme Court in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not reduced the 12-monthperiod mentioned in the above quoted constitutional provision insofar as theSandiganbayan, a collegiate court, is concerned. It is basic that in case of conflict betweena constitutional provision on one hand and a statute or an internal rule of procedure of acourt on the other, the former, being a part of the fundamental law of the land, must prevail.

Also, pursuant to Section 4 of Republic Act No. 8245 (approved on February 5, 1997) theSandiganbayan has also exclusive appellate jurisdiction "over final judgments, resolutionsor orders of the regional trial courts whether in the exercise of their original jurisdiction or of their appellate jurisdiction as herein provided."

In this connection, be it noted that section 1 of R.A. No. 8249 further amending P.D. No.1606, as amended, provides that:

SECTION 1. Sand i ganbayan; Composi t i on; Qual i f i cat i ons; Tenur e; Removal and Compensat i on ² A special court, of the same level as the Cour t of Appeals and

possessi ng all the i nher ent power s of a cour t of just i ce, to be known as theSand i ganbayan is hereby created composed of a presiding justice and fourteen

associate justices who shall be appointed by the President.

Incidentally, per the Rules of Procedure of the Sandiganbayan, each division is composedof three (3) justices whose unanimous vote is required to render a decision, resolution or order. In the event there is a dissent, a special division is formed whereby two (2) justiceswho shall be chosen by raffle and added to the division concerned, in which event, themajority rule shall prevail. For that reason and considering also that appeals from thedecisions of the Sandiganbayan are to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, theSandiganbayan as a collegiate trial court, is significantly different from the one-man regionaltrial court.

Subject to the foregoing observations and partial dissent, I concur with the rest of theresolution.

Footnotes

1 Dated July 29, 2000, done in Los Baños, Laguna. Signed by Arthur D. Lim(National President), and the following Governors: Carmencito P. Caingat (CentralLuzon), Jose P. Icaonapo, Jr. (Greater Manila), Teresita Infatado-Gines (SouthernLuzon), Serafin P. Rivera (Bicolandia), Celestino B. Sabate (Eastern Visayas), David

A. Ponce de Leon (Western Visayas), Paulino R. Ersando (Western Mindanao). Thefollowing did not take any part in the Resolution: Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (ExecutiveVice President) was on study leave, and Nicanor A. Magno (Governor for EasternMindanao) was on sick leave.

2 Rollo, p. 2.

3 Rollo, pp. 3-4.



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 Fir st Di v i si on composed of Francis E. Garchitorena (Presiding Justice andChairman); Catalino R. Castañeda, Jr. (Associate Justice) and Gregory S. Ong(Associate Justice).

14 Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leaño, involving156 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 theSandiganbayan conducted by the Court Administrator's Judicial Audit Team. Theteam was composed of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, together withConsultants 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 Li car os v. Sand i ganbayan, 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 XVIII of the Revised Rulesof 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.

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 « x x x (Section1)."

25 R. A. No. 8249, Section 2, empowers the Sandiganbayan to "hold sessions x x xfor the trial and determination of cases filed with it."

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 mattersrelating to the internal operations of the court which shall be enforced until repealed

or modified by the Supreme Court.

29 Ibi d .

30 Supr a, 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 exclusiveappellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trialcourts whether in the exercise of their own original jurisdiction or of their appellate

jurisdiction as herein provided."

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 asthe "Sandiganbayan."

35 R.A. No. 8249 is silent on this matter. Amendments are to be construed as if theyare 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 topromulgate 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 thisprovision, approved March 30, 1995, effective May 6, 1995.

37 Rule XVIII, Section 3, The Sandiganbayan, Revised Rules of Procedure.

38 R.A. No. 7975, Section 1.



39 Cari ño v. Of i lada, 217 SCRA 206 (1993).

40 Dacumos v. Sand i ganbayan, 195 SCRA 833 (1991), discussing the power of a trialcourt.

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 JusticeFrancis E. Garchitorena is the Chairman.

44 Compliance, Rollo, pp. 7-18.

* Second Di v i si on composed of Edilberto G. Sandoval ( Assoc i ate Just i ce and Chair man); Godofredo L. Legaspi ( Assoc i ate Just i ce) and Raul V. Victorino( Assoc i ate Just i ce).

** Thir d Di v i si on composed of Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. ( Assoc i ate Just i ce and Chair man); Teresita Leonardo-De Castro ( Assoc i ate Just i ce) and Ricardo M. Ilarde( Assoc i ate Just i ce, Retired November 27, 2001).

*** F our th Di v i si on composed of Narciso S. Nario ( Assoc i ate Just i ce and Chair man);Rodolfo G. Palattao ( Assoc i ate Just i ce) and Nicodemo T. Ferrer ( Assoc i ate Just i ce).

**** Fi fth Di v i si on composed of Minita V. Chico-Nazario ( Assoc i ate Just i ce and Chair man); Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada ( Assoc i ate Just i ce) and Francisco H.Villaruz, Jr. ( Assoc i ate Just i ce).

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: r epor t on theJud i c i al Aud i t Conducted i n the Muni c i pal C ir cui t T ri al Cour t, Di ngle-Duenas, Iloi lo,345 Phil. 884 (1997).

47 See Comment of Presiding Justice, G. R. No. 145851, Li car os v. Sand i ganbayan.

48 Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Cor azon Gammad-Leaño, involving156 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 theCourt Administrator by Estella Teresita C. Rosete, Executive Clerk of Court, FirstDivision, 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, Tal i bon, Bohol, F or Extensi onof T i me to Dec i de C i v i l Case No. 0020 and C ri mi nal Case No. 98-384, 316 SCRA219 (1999); Ber nar do v. F abr os, 366 Phil. 485 (1999).

54 In a Memorandum signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. addressed toJustice (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 the Sandiganbayan on September 24,

1997.

* Justice Gregory S. Ong was appointed to the Sandiganbayan on October 5, 1998.

** The Fourth and Fifth Divisions of the Sandiganbayan were created only onSeptember 25, 1997.

*** The case assignments of Justice Badoy, Jr. were all transferred to JusticeVillaruz when Justice Badoy, Jr. transferred to the Third Division. The report of theSandiganbayan 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 R i ver a v. Lamor ena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).

61 Cueva v. V i llanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).

62 Repor t on the Jud i c i al Aud i t i n RTC, Br . 27, Lapu-Lapu C i ty , 352 Phil. 223, 232(1998); Sta. Ana v. Ari nday, J r ., 347 Phil. 671, 674 (1997).

63

Bolal i n v. Occ i ano, 334 Phil. 178 (1997).

64 Re: Repor t on the Jud i c i al Aud i t Conducted i n RTC, Br anches 29 and 59, ToledoC i ty , 354 Phil. 8 (1998); Abar quez v. Rebosur a, 349 Phil. 24, 38 (1998); Longboan v.Hon. Pol i g , 186 SCRA 557 (1990).

65 Sta. Ana v. Ari nday, J r ., supr a, 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, Li car os v. Sand i ganbayan, filed on November 23, 2000.

70 370 Phil. 287 (1999).

71 Supr a, 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 (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1951, WestPublishing Co., p. 1160.

75 R i ver a v. Lamor ena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).

76 Sabado v. Caj i gal , 219 SCRA 800 (1993); Casi a v. Gestopa, J r ., 371 Phil. 131(1999); Repor t on the Jud i c i al Aud i t Conducted i n RTC, Br s. 29, 56 and 57,Li bmanan, Camari nes Sur , 316 SCRA 272 (1999); Re: Cases Left U ndec i ded by Judge Nar c i so M. Bumanglag, J r ., 365 Phil. 492 (1999 ); Re: r epor t on the Jud i c i al

Aud i t Conducted i n the RTC, Br . 68, Cami l i ng, Tar lac , 364 Phil. 530(1999); Ber nar do v. F abr os, 366 Phil. 485 (1999); Loui s V i utton S. A. v. V i llanueva,

216 SCRA 121 (1992); Imposed in a case where there was failure to decide a casedespite the lapse of years from its submission (Lambino v. de Vera, 341 Phil. 62, 67(1997).

77 Supr a, Note 61, at p. 303-304.

78 Repor t on the Jud i c i al Aud i t Conducted i n the Muni c i pal C ir cui t T ri al Cour t, Di ngle-Duenas, Iloi lo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).

79 Supr a, Note 78.

80

As of December 21, 2000.

81 Supr a, Note 14, Rollo, p. 56.

82 As of November 16, 2001. See 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 unresolved. Another instance of violation of the thirty day reglementary period for resolving motions for reconsideration.

85 Supr a, pp. 17-18 of this resolution.

86 On December 08, 2000, Presiding Justice Garchitorena decided a singleconsolidated case of 156 components, Crim. Cases Nos. 9812 to 9967, for estafathrough falsification of public documents.

87 R. A. No. 7975, Section 4.

7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001

Documents

Transcript of 7C-64 Delays in the SB, A.M. No. SC Nov. 28, 2001