SC Suspends Judge for Undue Delay in Rendering Decision in Criminal Case
February 5, 2024
No judge can choose to prolong, on his own, the period for deciding cases beyond the period authorized by law.
Thus ruled the Supreme Court En Banc in a Per Curiam Decision ordering the suspension of Judge Oscar P. Noel, Jr., (Judge Noel) Presiding Judge, Branch 35, Regional Trial Court (RTC), General Santos City, South Cotabato for Gross Neglect of Duty in his capacity as Assisting Judge (Justice on Wheels), Alabel, Sarangani Province.
In 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) asked Judge Noel to comment on an administrative complaint alleging delay in a criminal case pending in the judge’s sala since 2010.
According to Judge Noel, it was another judge who was presiding when the case, Criminal Case No. 2642-07 charging accused Jimmy Dela Torre with rape, was filed on October 30, 2007.
Judge Noel, for his part, took over the case only on February 11, 2010. He also justified, in his comment, that he was presiding three different courts – Branch 35, RTC General Santos City; Justice on Wheels (JOW) Polomolok, South Cotabato, and JOW Sarangani Province. Criminal Case No. 2642-07 was being heard in Maasim, Sarangani Province, where the JOW Bus travelled to and from General Santos City only once a month. Judge Noel reasoned that given the volume of cases and time constraints, the case could not be heard frequently. In addition, resetting of hearings also takes two to three months.
Upon transmittal of the administrative case to the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB), the JIB recommended that Judge Noel be found guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-Performance of Official Functions, with a fine of PHP 250,000.00 as penalty.
The Court adopted the findings and recommendations of the JIB, but modified the penalty to suspension for two years.
The Court cited Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution, which imposed on lower courts the duty to decide or resolve cases or matters within three months. Further, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. This is reiterated in Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which requires judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness.
The Court further stressed that if judges do not possess efficiency and dedication in the prompt disposition of cases, delay is inevitable, to the prejudice of litigants. Judges must hence be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in discharging their obligation to administer justice promptly.
Thus, under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, the offense of Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision or Order is considered Gross Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-Performance of Official Functions under Section 14(d), or Simple Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-Performance of Official Functions under Section 15(d), depending on the seriousness of the act committed.
Gross neglect of duty or gross negligence refers to negligence characterized by the want of even slight care, or by acting or omitting to act in a situation where there is a duty to act, not inadvertently but willfully and intentionally, with a conscious indifference to the consequences, insofar as other persons may be affected.
In cases involving public officials, gross negligence occurs when a breach of duty is flagrant and palpable. In contrast, simple neglect of duty means the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of them, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference.
In the case of Judge Noel, the Court found him guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty for failing to resolve Criminal Case No. 2642-07 within the reglementary period. The Court noted how the judge allowed the case to lag for more than 10 years since he took over the case in 2010.
As cited in Judge Noel’s own chronology of events, the testimony of the witnesses for the defense started on December 1, 2014. Yet, six years after, when the authority of Judge Noel to hear onboard the mobile court was revoked by the Court on August 19, 2020, the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defense witness still had not been finished, the Court pointed out.
The Court also told Judge Noel that he should have reasonably exercised his discretion to allow postponements and continuances of the proceedings. In its very nature, the discretionary control conferred upon the trial judge over the proceedings before him or her implies the absence of any hard-and-fast rule by which it is to be exercised and in accordance with which it may be reviewed. However, this discretion conferred upon the courts is not a willful, arbitrary, capricious, and uncontrolled discretion. It is a sound judicial discretion that should always be exercised with due regard to the rights of the parties and the demands of equity and justice.
The Court also cautioned judges with cases being heard under the JOW program. Given the primary aim of the JOW to speed up the resolution of cases to address the perennial criticism of backlog of cases, judges at the forefront of this endeavor are expected to exhibit vitality and vigor in disposing cases. On the part of Judge Noel, however, his languid attitude about Criminal Case No. 2642-07 failed to live up to this expectation.
Finally, as to Judge Noel’s justification of voluminous workload, the Court stressed that a judge’s plea of heavy workload, lack of sufficient time, poor health, and physical impossibility could not excuse him or her, since a request could have been easily made to the Court to extend the time to resolve cases.
While the Court’s awareness of the heavy caseload of the trial courts has often moved it to allow reasonable extensions of time for trial judges to decide their cases, judges are reminded that without an order of extension granted by the Court, a failure to decide a single case within the required period rightly constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.
Records show that Judge Noel failed to request an extension of time within which to decide the case despite his alleged heavy workload. Thus, the Court found Judge Noel unmindful of his duties and lacking professional competence in court management.
In determining the penalty to be imposed on Judge Noel, the Court appreciated as aggravating circumstances previous findings of administrative liability for Gross Ignorance of the Law in three instances: (1) in A.M. No. RTJ-12-2311, where he was merely admonished; (2) in A.M. No. RTJ-18-2525, where he was reprimanded; and (3) in A.M. No. RTJ-23-029, where he was suspended from office without salary and benefits for two years. In the last two cases, Judge Noel was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with more severely.
Taking into consideration the foregoing and applying the penalties for a serious charge, such as Gross Neglect of Duty, under Sections 14(d) and 17 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as further amended, the Court ordered Judge Noel’s suspension for two years, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
The Supreme Court Public Information Office will upload a copy of the Decision in A.M. No. RTJ-23-050 (Villarojo v. Noel, Jr.) once it receives the same from the Office of the Clerk of Court En Banc. (Courtesy of the Supreme Court Public Information Office)