Savellano v. Dayco
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This administrative matter arose from the non-resolution within the reglementary period of several criminal and civil cases before the Regional Trial Court of Manila, Branch 53, presided over by Executive Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., who compulsorily retired on March 14, 1999. Reports indicated that Judge Savellano issued subsequent orders near his retirement date extending the period for parties to submit memoranda, despite marked non-compliance for unreasonable periods. Additionally, several cases were left unresolved/undecided despite the lapse of unreasonable lengths of time, and ten cases were decided beyond the 90-day reglementary period. Procedural History: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) gathered observations based on status reports submitted by Clerk of Court Froilan S. Dayco regarding the handling of these cases. The Supreme Court, in a Resolution dated August 3, 1999, required Judge Savellano and Clerk of Court Dayco to explain the improper reporting of nine civil cases and ten criminal cases in the Monthly Reports of Cases. Judge Savellano was also required to explain his possible violation of Administrative Circular No. 28 and for deciding cases beyond the 90-day reglementary period. The Petition: Judge Savellano, in his Explanation dated August 14, 1999, invoked Article VII, Section 15(2) of the Constitution, positing that the subject cases were not yet submitted for decision as parties had yet to submit their respective memoranda. He stated he awaited the filing of required memoranda and issued subsequent orders for additional time, but parties failed to comply. He also submitted that he decided cases based on personal notes taken during trial, even without memoranda, and that his additional duties as Executive Judge and judge of a Special Criminal Court affected the speedy disposition of cases.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr. is liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and for violating Supreme Court rules and directives. Whether the explanation provided by Judge Savellano absolves him from administrative liability.
Ruling
The Court found Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr. liable for undue delay in the rendition of judgment and for violating Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 28 and Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. A fine of P5,000.00 was imposed, to be deducted from the P30,000.00 already set aside from his retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of undue delay and violation of rules: The Court held that Administrative Circular No. 28 clearly states that a case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of evidence or upon the filing of the last memorandum or expiration of the period to do so. The 90-day period for deciding the case commences from this submission. While courts may grant extensions for memoranda, this does not interrupt the 90-day period for decision. Judges are mandated to decide cases even if parties fail to submit memoranda, as non-submission is considered a waiver and the memorandum is not an indispensable pleading. The court can decide based on personal notes and records. Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct admonishes judges to dispose of business promptly and decide cases within the periods fixed by law, as delay erodes public faith in the judiciary. Judge Savellano's admission that he decided cases based on personal notes, regardless of the lack of memoranda, further supports his liability. His additional duties as Executive Judge and judge of a Special Criminal Court do not excuse him from his constitutional duty to decide cases within ninety (90) days from submission. The Court reiterated that being an Executive Judge is a privilege and does not exempt a judge from complying with his constitutional duty. Judges burdened by heavy caseloads may ask for additional time with leave of court. The standing rule is that the ninety-day period should be observed unless additional time is granted. On the issue of whether the explanation absolves him from liability: The proffered explanation of Judge Savellano, that parties failed to submit memoranda, loses persuasion and fails to absolve him from liability.
Main Doctrine
Judges are liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and for violating Supreme Court rules and circulars, even if parties fail to submit memoranda, as non-submission is considered a waiver and does not interrupt the 90-day period for decision. The designation as Executive Judge does not excuse compliance with the constitutional duty to decide cases within the reglementary period.