Visbal v. Buban
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal filed a sworn letter-complaint against Judge Marino S. Buban for gross inefficiency and misconduct. The complaint alleged that Judge Buban resolved a "Motion to Correct and Re-mark Exhibits of the Prosecution" filed on July 29, 1999, only on March 20, 2000, almost eight months later, violating the 90-day reglementary period. It was further alleged that the delay was deliberate, stemming from animosity due to the prosecutor's filing of administrative charges and inhibition motions. Additionally, the judge was accused of falsification for stating in his Certificates of Service from October 1999 to February 2000 that he had no pending motions for resolution. Procedural History: The respondent judge admitted the delay but attributed it to frequent resetting of hearings and his clerk of court's failure to submit the records promptly. He also blamed the complainant for not reminding him earlier. The Deputy Court Administrator recommended that the respondent be held administratively liable for gross inefficiency. The Petition: The case reached the Supreme Court for resolution of the administrative complaint against the respondent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge incurred undue delay in resolving the motion filed by the prosecution and committed gross inefficiency in office. Whether the respondent judge falsified his Certificates of Service. Whether the respondent judge is administratively liable for undue delay.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found the respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay in rendering an order, a less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court. He was ordered to pay a fine of P11,000.00 with a stern warning against repetition.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of undue delay and gross inefficiency: The Court reiterated its mandate that judges must dispose of court business promptly and that delay in resolving motions within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days is inexcusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. The respondent judge's admission of delay and his excuses, such as the clerk of court's failure or forgetfulness, were not accepted. The Court emphasized that proper and efficient court management is the judge's responsibility, not that of court personnel. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates prompt disposition of business, and Rule 3.08 and 3.09 require diligent discharge of administrative responsibilities and supervision of court personnel to ensure efficient dispatch of business. The respondent judge failed to comply with these mandates and also with Circular No. 13 dated July 31, 1987, directing judges to closely supervise court personnel. On the issue of falsification of Certificates of Service: While the respondent judge did not refute the imputation of falsification, the Office of the Court Administrator found that he continued to certify that all matters submitted within ninety days or more had been decided. However, the Deputy Court Administrator noted that the false entries were based on the respondent's erroneous belief that he had no pending matters. The Court concluded that there could be no crime when the criminal mind is wanting, thus not finding him liable for falsification but still holding him liable for undue delay. On the administrative liability: Based on the undisputed fact of delay, the Court found the respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay in rendering an order, classified as a less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court. The penalty prescribed for such offense includes suspension or a fine. The Court opted to impose a fine of P11,000.00, with a stern warning.
Main Doctrine
Undue delay in resolving motions and incidents within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days constitutes gross inefficiency and is not excusable, violating the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judges are responsible for proper and efficient court management, including supervising court personnel.