ENBANC

MARISSAR.MONDALA,A.M.No.RTJ062010
LegalResearcher,RegionalTrial
Court,Branch136,MakatiCity,
Complainant,Present:

Puno,C.J.,
Quisumbing,
YnaresSantiago,
SandovalGutierrez,
Carpio,
versusAustriaMartinez,
Corona,
CarpioMorales,
Callejo,Sr.,
Azcuna,
Tinga,
ChicoNazario,
Garcia,and
Velasco,Jr.,JJ.
JUDGEREBECCAR.MARIANO,
RegionalTrialCourt,Branch136,Promulgated:
MakatiCity,
Respondent.January25,2007
xx

DECISION

YNARESSANTIAGO,J.:

ThisisanadministrativematterconcerningthelettercomplaintofMarissaR.Mondala,LegalResearcher
oftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCity,Branch136,againstPresidingJudgeRebeccaR.Marianoof
[1]
thesamecourt.
In her letter, Mondala charged respondent judge with misrepresenting in her Report of Pending
Cases for January 2005 that she had already decided Civil Case No. 00564 entitled Amanet Inc. v.
EasternTelecommunicationsPhilippines,Inc.wheninfactthecasewasstillwithMondalaforresearch
anddraftingofthedecision.


InherComment,JudgeMarianodeniedMondalasallegationsandinsistedthatatthetimesheprepared
themonthlyreport,adecisionhadactuallybeenpreparedintheAmanetcaseanditwasmereoversighton
her part, not misrepresentation, when she reported the status of the subject case as decided.
Notwithstanding this, Judge Mariano subsequently prepared and signed another decision on the same
[2]
case.

Tosupportherallegations,JudgeMarianoattachedacertificationdatedOctober25,2005issuedbyAtty.
TeodoricoL.Diaz,presentBranch136ClerkofCourt,aswellastheaffidavitsexecutedbyProsecutor
Teodoro
ReyS.Riel,Jr.,formerBranch136ClerkofCourtElviraL.Tablate,ClerkinChargeofCivilCasesand
[3]
Ma.TheresaM.Belando,aClerkdetailedtoBranch136.

Inhisaffidavit,Atty.RielclaimedthathewastheClerkofCourtofBranch136fromApril1999upto
January2005thattheAmanetcasewasamongthosereportedasdecidedforthemonthofJanuary2005
thatwhentheJanuary2005reportwasbeingprepared,hewasinformedbytheClerkinChargeforCivil
Cases that a decision had already been prepared and was due for printing in final form that Judge
Marianoinstructedhimtoincludethesaidcaseinthelistofcasesdecidedforthemonthandtosubmita
copyofthedecisionlateronsinceitwasstilltobeprintedinfinalform.

Tablate, ClerkinCharge for Civil Cases, stated in her affidavit that when the January 2005 report was
beingprepared,thedecisionintheAmanetcasehadalreadybeendraftedandwasdueforprintinginfinal
formthatupontheinstructionofJudgeMariano,Amanetwasincludedinthelistofcasesdecidedforthe
monthwithoutattachingacopythereofandwiththeintentionofsubmittingthesameatthesoonesttime
thataftersubmissionofthesaidreportandwhenthedraftdecisionwasbeingprintedinfinalform,the
[4]
computerboggeddownandthedraftdecisioncouldnolongerberetrieved.

BelandoallegedthatsheisthepermanentemployeeofthelocalgovernmentofMakatiCitydetailedto
Branch 136 and that she retyped the final draft of the Amanet case in the early part of 2005 upon
[5]
Mondalasinstructions.

Atty.DiazclaimedthattheAmanetcasewasoneofthecasesturnedovertohimbyMondalaonAugust
13,2005thattheAmanetcasehadbeenwithMondalaforresearchsinceFebruary2005whilethelatter
servedasOfficerinChargeofBranch136thatthecaseremainedpendinguptothetimeMondalaturned

[6]
overthesametohimonAugust13,2005.

JudgeMarianoaverredthatMondalashouldhavecalledherattentionregardingthestatusofthesubject
casetoenablehertoaddressthesituationthatMondalasfailuretoinformherofthestatusofthecase
showedherinefficiencyandunworthinessasapublicservant.

JudgeMarianoinsistedthatthequarrelbetweenherandMondalawhichtranspiredonAugust22,2005
prompted the latter to write the lettercomplaint that Mondala is a perennial latecomer, a habitual
absentee, and negligent in the performance of her duties that Mondalas disrespectful attitude and
unprofessionalconductduringtheAugust22,2005encounterpromptedhertoaskforMondalasdetailto
theOfficeoftheClerkofCourtoftheMakatiRTC.

The Office of the CourtAdministrator (OCA), through Deputy CourtAdministrator Zenaida N. Elepao
and Assistant Court Administrator Antonio H. Dujua, made the following recommendations, the
dispositiveportionofwhichstates:

1.ThattheinstantcasebeconvertedintoaregularadministrativematterandthatJudgeRebeccaR.Mariano
befoundliableformisrepresentingthatshedecidedCivilCaseNo.00564entitledAmanetInc.vs.
EasternTelecommunicationsPhilippines,Inc.sometimeinJanuary2005whensuchcasehadyetto
be printed, signed by her, and filed with the Clerk of Court as of March 7, 2005, such
misrepresentationpartakingthenatureofdishonesty,andbefinedintheamountofP20,000.00

2.ThatJudgeMarianobedirectedtoexplaininwritingwithinten(10)daysfromnoticewhysheshouldnot
be disciplined for her failure to decide the following cases within the 90day reglementary period
withoutanyrequestforextensionoftimebeingfiledbyher,towit:

CaseNo.

Title

1.

961626

2.

91980

3.

02546

4.

934083

5.

98460

6.

01754

PhilamInsuranceCo.
v.Marathon,Inc.
EstateofZuluetav.
AugustoCamara
BPIv.Milwaukee
Builders,Inc.
Phil.CharterIns.v.
Swissair
ExportIndustryv.
Sps.Sy
Philamv.Geologistic

7.

00564

Amanetv.Eastern

Date
Submitted
For
Decision
CIVILCASES
June29,
2004
June30,
2004
June30,
2004
June28,
2004
June28,
2004
June25,
2004
June18,
2004

DateDue

Sept.29,
2004
Sept.30,
2004
Sept.30,
2004
Sept.28,
2004
Sept.28,
2004
Sept.25,
2004
Sept.18,
2004

Statusas
ofDec.
2004
Pending
Resolution
do
do
do
do
do
do

8.

01810

9.

JasperOngv.HBI
Securities
InRe:Guardianshipof
MinorsManguale

M5893

1.

012653

2.

012299

PPv.SimonShamie,
etal.
PPv.LemuelPatungalan

3.

022787

PPv.ReynaldoAlmerie

4.

03049

PPv.WilmaCabe

5.

021505

PPv.AlfredoJapon

August27,
2004
Sept.20,
2004

CRIMINALCASES
June25,
2004
June25,
2004
June23,
2004
June18,
2004
June7,
2004

Nov.27,
2004
Dec.20,
2004

Sept.25,
2004
Sept.25,
2004
Sept.23,
2004
Sept.18,
2004
Sept.7,
2004

do
do

do
do
do
do
do

and

3.ThattheOfficeoftheCourtAdministratorbeauthorizedtoconstituteateamtoconductajudicialauditof
Branch 136RTC, Makati City, to enable the said Office to determine the true state of this courts
[7]
docket.

Theissuesintheinstantcaseare:whetherJudgeMarianoisliableformisrepresentationwhenshe
included in the January 2005 monthly report the case of Amanet Inc. v. Eastern Telecommunications
Philippines,Inc.asamongthedecidedcasesandwhetherrespondentjudgemadeinaccurateentriesinthe
monthlyreportsandfailedtodecidetheothercaseswithinthe90dayreglementaryperiod.

We agree with the findings of the OCA that Judge Mariano is liable for misrepresenting that she
haddecidedthecaseofAmanetInc.v.EasternTelecommunicationsPhilippines,Inc.beforeitwasdrafted,
printedandsignedbyher.

Grantingarguendo,thatMondalawasmotivatedbyadesireforrevengeandharassmentduetoherquarrel
with Judge Mariano on August 22, 2005, this does not deny the fact that Judge Mariano included an
undecidedcaseinthelistofdecidedcasesintheJanuary2005monthlyreport.

ThereisnomeritinJudgeMarianosclaimthattheAmanetcasewasincludedinthelistofdecidedcases
becauseatthetimeofthepreparationofthereport,adecisionhadalreadybeenpreparedandwasduefor
printinginfinalform.

Adecisioninacivilcaseisrenderedonlyuponthesigningbythejudgewhopennedthesameandupon
filing with the clerk of court. A judgment or final order determining the merits of the case shall be in
writingpersonallyanddirectlypreparedbythejudge,statingclearlyanddistinctlythefactsandthelaw

[8]
on which it is based, signed by him, and filed with the clerk of court. What constitutes rendition of
judgment is not the mere pronouncement of the judgment in open court but the filing of the decision
[9]
signedbythejudgewiththeClerkofCourt.

Itiselementarythatadraftofadecisiondoesnotoperateasjudgmentonacaseuntilthesameisduly
[10]
signed and delivered to the clerk for filing and promulgation.
Hence, rendition of judgment is not
effectedandcompleteduntilafterthedecisionandjudgmentsignedbythetrialjudge.

[11]
InEchausv.CourtofAppeals,
weheld:

Timehonoredandofconstantobservanceistheprinciplethatnojudgment,ororderwhetherfinal
or interlocutory, has juridical existence until and unless it is set down in writing, signed, and
promulgated, i.e., delivered by the Judge to the Clerk of Court for filing, release to the parties and
implementation, and that indeed, even after promulgation, it does not bind the parties until and unless
[12]
noticethereofisdulyservedonthembyanyofthemodesprescribedbylaw.xxx
(Emphasissupplied)

The fact that Judge Mariano had not yet decided the Amanet case in January 2005, is likewise
pointedoutintheaffidavitofTablate,ClerkinChargeforCivilCases. Therecords,ontheotherhand,
[13]
showthatJudgeMarianosubmittedtheJanuary2005monthlyreportonlyonMarch7,2005,
which
means that it was only then when RTCBranch 136 initiated the printing of the decision in the Amanet
[14]
case.

As correctly pointed out by the OCA, what the monthly report requires is a list of cases decided
duringthemonthcoveredandnotalistofcaseswithprepareddrafts.Moreover,thelistofdecidedcases
should pertain to those decided during the month for which the report is being submitted, the basis of
[15]
whichistheseventhparagraphofAdministrativeCircularNo.42004.

Thus,JudgeMarianomisrepresentedherselfregardingthedateofthepromulgationofthedecision
intheAmanet case. While the January 2005 monthly report of Branch 136 was submitted on March 7,
2005,thesubjectdecisionintheAmanetcasehadnotyetbeenprinted.Amanethadobviouslynotyetbeen
decidedinJanuary2005.

JudgeMarianoislikewiseguiltyofotheradministrativetransgressions.

The January 2005 monthly report of Branch 136 reveals that there were cases submitted for
decision but remained undecided beyond the 90day reglementary period without any request for
[16]
extensionoftimewithinwhichtodecidethesamebeingsubmitted.

TherecordsshowthatJudgeMarianofailedtorequestanextensionoftimetodecideCivilCase
Nos.01754andM5893andCriminalCaseNos.012653,012299,022787,03049and021505.Her
requestforextensionoftimetodecidewasonlywithrespecttoCivilCaseNos.00465,00594,99936,
961626,91980,02546,934083,001022,01810and98960,whichthisCourtgrantedbygivingher
[17]
additional30daysfromSeptember30,2004withinwhichtodecidethesecases.

Despitetheextendedperiod,JudgeMarianostillfailedtodecideCivilCaseNos.961626,91980
and934083.The December 2005 Monthly Report submitted by Judge Mariano shows that these cases
[18]
remainedundecidedformorethanayearfromtheextendedperiod.

A number of other cases were decided more than a year from the time these were submitted for
decisionwithoutanyrequestforextension,asshowninthemonthlyreportsforSeptember,Octoberand
[19]
November2005.
InthemonthlyreportforJuly2005,CivilCaseNo.M5893andCriminalCaseNo.
[20]
022787didnothaveastatusreportandwerenotinthelistofdecidedcasesforthesamemonth.

NolessthantheConstitutionmandatesthatallcasesormattersmustbedecidedorresolvedwithin
24monthsfromdateofsubmissionfortheSupremeCourt,and,unlessreducedbytheSupremeCourt,12
[21]
monthsforalllowercollegiatecourts,andthreemonthsforallotherlowercourts.

[22]
Inimplementingthisconstitutionalmandate,Sec.5,Canon6oftheNewCodeofJudicialConduct
exhortsinthesectiononCompetenceandDiligencethatjudgesshallperformalljudicialduties,including
thedeliveryofreserveddecisions,efficiently,fairlyandwithreasonablepromptness.

Judges should therefore be prompt in the performance of their judicial duties for delay in the
administration of justice is a common complaint. They are enjoined to strictly comply with the
[23]
reglementaryperiodof90daysindisposingofacasesubmittedfordecision.

[24]
In Request of Judge Roberto S. Javellana for Extension of Time to Decide,
we held that
decisionmaking,amongothers,istheprimordialandmostimportantdutyofeverymemberofthebench.
Judgeshaveasworndutytoadministerjusticewithoutunduedelay,forjusticedelayedisjusticedenied.
NolessthantheConstitutionrequiresthatatrialcourtjudgeshallresolveordecidecaseswithin3months
aftertheyhavebeensubmittedfordecision.Inaddition,theCodeofJudicialConductexhortsJudgesto
disposeofthecourtsbusinesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithintherequiredperiod.Ajudgeshouldnot
[25]
paymerelipservicetothe90dayreglementaryperiodfordecidingacase.

A judges failure to observe time prescription for the rendition of judgments in derogation of an
otherwisespeedyadministrationofjusticeconstitutesagroundforadministrativesanction.TheCourtis
notunawareof,andcertainlynotwithoutsympathyfor,theheavycaseloadofmostjudges.Thus,asithas
sooftenstatedonanumberofoccasions,allthatajudgehastodoistorequestadditionaltimetodecide
[26]
cases,andsuchrequests,ifmeritorious,arealmostinvariablygrantedbytheCourt.

It is desirable that a judge should at all times manifest fidelity to the trust reposed in him. An
adequate grasp of the codal and statutory provisions, not to mention the Constitution, as well as legal
doctrines,isnecessary.Thatheshouldbeimpartialislikewiseatruism.Ofequalimportance,however,is
the promptness with which cases in his sala are disposed of. The peoples faith in the administration of
justice,especiallythosewhobelongtothelowincomegroup,wouldbegreatlyimpairedifdecisionsare
long in coming, more so from trial courts, which unlike collegiate tribunals where there is a need for
extended deliberation, could be expected to act with dispatch. Unfortunately, it cannot be denied that
delay still attends the performance of the judicial task. It could amount to serious inefficiency, arising
eitherfromlackofskillinthehandlingofauthoritativelegalmaterialsorlackofapropersysteminthe
handlingofcourtbusiness.Forthatmatter,negligence,ifrecklessincharacter,couldamounttoserious
[27]
inefficiency.

[28]
RespondentjudgeinYuv.Serrano
signedandsubmittedtothisCourtconflictingmonthlyreportsof
pending cases. When the attention of respondent Judge Serrano was called to the inconsistencies in his
reports,hecontendedthathesignedthesamewithoutreviewingthemashereliedsolelyonthereportsof
pending cases prepared by his clerk of court. This fact, as well as the loss of the original copy of the
decision in Criminal Case No. 3994 and the records thereof, show at the very least respondent Judge
Serranosgrossneglectorinefficiencyintheperformanceofhisdutiesasmunicipaljudge.Asstatedby
[29]
theCourtintheanalogouscaseofTadiarv.Cases,
respondentcouldnotusetheclerkofcourtasthe

scapegoatforhisremissnessandslothfulness.

[30]
OfficeoftheCourtAdministratorv.Panganiban
islikewiseinstructive:

Respondents failure to decide cases constitutes a violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of
JudicialConductwhichrequiresjudgestodisposeoftheircourtsbusinesspromptlyanddecidecaseswithin
theperiodspecifiedintheConstitution,i.e.,three(3)monthsorninety(90)daysfromthefilingofthelast
pleading,brief,ormemorandum.ThisCanonisintendedtoimplementtheConstitutionwhichmakesitthe
duty of trial courts to decide cases within three months, even as it gives parties to a suit the right to the
speedydispositionoftheircases.

Respondentjudgeknewofthecasespendingresolution.Infact,shehadbeenreportingthemtothisCourtin
hermonthlyreports.Nonetheless,shestatedinhercertificatesofservicethatshehadnocasesubmittedfor
decisionwithinthe90daysprecedingthesubmissionofhercertificate,inthehonestbeliefthatthesalary
which she collected on the basis of such certificates had been justly earned notwithstanding the fact that
therearesubmittedcasesremainingfordecision.ThisofcourseconstitutesmisconductunderRule140,1of
the Rules of Court.As an officer of the court, she should conduct herself strictly in accordance with the
higheststandardsofethics.

Neithergoodfaithnorlong,unblemishedandaboveaverageserviceinthejudiciarycanfullyjustify
respondentjudgeslapses.TheCourtcannotcountenanceunduedelayinthedispositionofcaseswhichisone
ofthecausesofthelossoffaithandconfidenceofourpeopleinthejudiciaryandbringsitintodisrepute.
NorcantheCourtturnablindeyetowhatmightconstitutegrossmisconductbecauseofthesubmissionof
[31]
falsecertificatesofservice.

Under Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 42004, the penalty for judges and clerks of
courtwhoareresponsibleforinaccurateentriesintheirmonthlyreportsistohavetheirsalarieswithheld.
[32]
However, the circumstances in the instant case warrant a penalty under the Rules of Court as the
entries are not simply inaccurate or the result of mere oversight, but rather the product of a deliberate
misrepresentationofthestatusofAmanetandotherundecidedcases.Respondentjudgeoughttobeheld
administrativelyaccountableforgrossmisconductinintentionallyconcealingthetruth,i.e.,inmisleading
theCourtregardingthedatewhenshedecidedtheAmanetcaseandformakinginaccurateentriesinher
monthly reports, a breach of the trust and confidence reposed by this Court upon members of the
Judiciary.

UnderSec.1,Canon2oftheNewCodeofJudicialConduct,judgesoughttoensurethatnotonlyis
their conduct above reproach, but that it is perceived to be so in the view of a reasonable observer.
Integrity is essential not only to the proper discharge of the judicial office but also to the personal
[33]
demeanorofjudges.

Intheinstantcase,respondentwasguiltyofintentionalmisrepresentationofherrecordsresultingin

abreachoftrustandconfidence,amountingtotheseriouschargeofgrossmisconductduetoviolationsof
theCanonsoftheCodeofJudicialConductandprovisionsofSupremeCourtAdministrativeCircularNo.
42004aswellasofmakinguntruthfulstatementsinthemonthlyreports,asprovidedinSec.8,Rule140
[34]
of the Rules of Court.
Taking into consideration the mitigating circumstances that this is her first
infractionandthattherecordsdonotshowanyadministrativecasefiledagainstherconcerningthesame
or similar charges, the proper penalty for her acts of deliberate misrepresentation constituting gross
misconduct is a fine of P40,000.00, with a stern warning that a commission of the same or a similar
offensewillbedealtwithmoreseverelyinthefuture,inaccordancewithSec.11,Rule140oftheRules
[35]
ofCourt.

WHEREFORE,respondentJudgeRebeccaR.MarianooftheRegionalTrialCourtofMakatiCity,
Branch136,isfoundguiltyoftheseriouschargeofgrossmisconductduetoviolationsoftheCanonsof
the Code of Judicial Conduct and provisions of Supreme CourtAdministrative Circular No. 42004, as
wellasofmakinguntruthfulstatementsinthemonthlyreportsandorderedtopayaFINEintheamount
of P40,000.00 directly to this Court, with a stern warning that a commission of the same or a similar
offensewillbedealtwithmoreseverely.

LetacopyofthisresolutionbeattachedtorespondentJudgespersonalrecord.

SOORDERED.

CONSUELOYNARESSANTIAGO
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:

REYNATOS.PUNO
ChiefJustice

LEONARDOA.QUISUMBINGANGELINASANDOVALGUTIERREZ