Republic of the Philippines SUPREME COURT Manila EN BANC A. M. No.

00-8-05-SC November 28, 2001

RE: PROBLEM OF DELAYS IN CASES BEFORE THE SANDIGANBAYAN RESOLUTION 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 the causes of delays in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases pending before the Sandiganbayan. The Antecedents On July 31, 2000, the IBP, through its National President, Arthur D. Lim, transmitted to the Court a Resolution1addressing the problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan (hereafter, the Resolution).2 We quote the Resolution in full:3 "WHEREAS, Section 16, Article III of the Constitution guarantees that, "[a]ll persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasijudicial, or administrative bodies," "WHEREAS, Canon 12 of the Code of Professional Responsibility for Lawyers mandates 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 undertake measures to assist in the speedy disposition of cases pending before the various courts and tribunals; "WHEREAS, the Integrated Bar of the Philippines has received numerous complaints 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 Regional Trial Courts, Metropolitan Trial Courts, Municipal Trial Courts and Municipal Circuit Trial 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 in criminal cases, the date of initial trial, the date of last hearing and the date that the case is submitted for decision, and to post, in a conspicuous place within its premises, a monthly list of cases submitted for decision; "WHEREAS, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not been made applicable to the Sandiganbayan; "WHEREAS, considering that the Sandiganbayan is also a trial court, the requirements 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 the Integrated 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 the Sandiganbayan has original jurisdiction; and "2. To recommend to the Supreme Court an inquiry into the causes of delay in the resolution of incidents and motions and in the decision of cases before the Sandiganbayan for the purpose of enacting measures intended at avoiding such delays. "Done in Los Baos, 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 Sandiganbayan cases pending decision, or with motion for reconsideration pending resolution, indicating the dates 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 cases submitted for decision and motion for reconsideration pending resolution before its divisions. We quote: "Cases Submitted W/ Motions For "For Reconsideration Decision "1st Division 341 None

"2nd Division "3rd Division "4th Division "5th Division "Total

5 12 5 52 415"
6

None None None 1

Thus, the Sandiganbayan has a total of four hundred fifteen (415) cases for decision remaining undecided long beyond the reglementary period to decide, with one case submitted as early as May 24, 1990,7 and motion for reconsideration which has remained unresolved over thirty days from submission.8 On October 20, 2000, Sandiganbayan Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena submitted a "schedule of cases submitted for decision, the schedule indicating the number of detained prisoners, of which there are (were) none."9 On October 26, 2000, the IBP submitted its reply to the compliance stating: First, that it was not in a position to comment on the accuracy of the compliance; nonetheless, it showed that there 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 since 1990 remained unresolved. Second, the compliance did not include pending motions, and it is a fact that motions not resolved over a long period of time would suspend and delay the disposition of a case. Third, since the Sandiganbayan is a trial court, it is required to submit the same reports required of Regional Trial Courts. Fourth, the Constitution10states that, "all lower 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 required to resolve and decide cases within a reduced period of three (3) months like regional trial courts, 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, especially on 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 Francis E. 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 156 cases but the same has been set for promulgation of decision on December 8, 2000, which would reduce the backlog by at least fifty percent (50%).15 On January 26, 2001, the Court Administrator submitted a memorandum to the Court16 stating that the causes of delay in the disposition of cases before the Sandiganbayan are:17 (1) Failure of the Office of the Special Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation report despite 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 and prohibition 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 in service. We consider ex mero motu the Resolution of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) as an administrative complaint against Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena for "serious delays in the decision of cases and in the resolution of motions and other pending incidents before 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 are indeed 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 case but took sole responsibility for such inaction for more than ten (10) years that constrained this Court to grant mandamus to dismiss the case against an accused to give substance and 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 the Sandiganbayan must decide/resolve cases falling within its jurisdiction? (2) Are there cases submitted for decision remaining undecided by the Sandiganbayan or any of its divisions beyond the afore-stated reglementary period? (3) Is Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1094 applicable to the Sandiganbayan?19 The Court's Ruling We resolve the issues presented in seriatim. 1. Period To Decide/Resolve Cases.-- There are two views. The first view is that from the time 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, the Sandiganbayan 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 be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission to 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 the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the 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 and possessing 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 Sandiganbayan was originally empowered to promulgate its own rules of procedure.27 However, on March 30, 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 Supreme Court 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 special courts and quasi-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 within the appellate jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan.32 The Court Administrator posits that since in the first class of cases, the Sandiganbayan acts more as a trial court, then for that classification of cases, the three (3) month reglementary period applies. For the second class of cases, the Sandiganbayan has the twelve-month reglementary period for collegiate courts.33 We do not agree. The law creating the Sandiganbayan, P.D. No. 160634 is clear on this issue.35 It provides: "Sec. 6. Maximum period for termination of cases As far as practicable, the trial of cases before the Sandiganbayan once commenced shall be continuous until terminated and the judgment shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision." On September 18, 1984, the Sandiganbayan promulgated its own rules,36 thus:37 "Sec. 3 Maximum Period to Decide Cases The judgment or final order of a division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months from the date the case was submitted for decision (italics ours)."

Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the three (3) month period, 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 trial court. The term "trial" is used in its broad sense, meaning, it allows introduction of evidence by 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, admit the evidence it regards as credible and reject that which they consider perjurious or fabricated.40 Compliance with its Own Rules In Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board (DARAB) v. Court of Appeals,41 the Court faulted the DARAB for violating its own rules of procedure. We reasoned that the DARAB does not have unfettered discretion to suspend its own rules. We stated that the DARAB "should have set the example of observance of orderly procedure." Otherwise, it would render its own Revised Rules of Procedure uncertain and whose permanence would be dependent upon the instability of its own whims and caprices. Similarly, in Cabagnot v. Comelec,42 this Court held that the Commission on Elections ought to 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 its objectivity and dependability. The Court reminded the Comelec to be more judicious in its actions and decisions and avoid imprudent volte-face moves that undermine the public's faith and confidence in it. The ratio decidendi 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 its rules, or except a case from its operation. 2. Undecided Cases Beyond the Reglementary Period.-- We find that the Sandiganbayan has several cases undecided beyond the reglementary period set by the statutes and its own 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. A number of the cases were submitted for decision as far back as more than ten (10) years ago. As of September 15, 2000, the following cases43 had not been decided:44 First Division Case Title (1) People v. Paares (2) People v. Gabriel Duero (3) People v. Rhiza Monterozo Case No. 12127 11999 133533 Date Submitted for Decision May 24, 1990 December 11, 1990 December 14, 1990

(4) People v. Zenon R. Perez (5) People v. Bernardo B. Dayao, Jr. (6) People v. Melquiades Ribo (7) People v. Carlos Benitez

13353 12305-12306 13521 12102

January 7, 1991 February 7, 1991 May 7, 1991 June 19, 1991 August 9, 1991 August 28, 1991 August 28, 1991 September 3, 1991 December 2, 1991 January 10, 1992 March 9, 1992 March 11, 1992 April 13, 1992 July 23, 1992 September 9, 1992 January 6, 1993 February 2, 1993 June 21, 1993 June 21, 1993 July 13, 1993 August 4, 1993 August 31, 1993 March 9, 1994 May 10, 1994 August 19, 1994 August 24, 1994 November 15, 1994 January 10, 1995 January 24, 1995

(8) People v. Salvador P. Nopre, et. 11156-11160 al. (9) People v. Delfina A. Letegio (10) People v. Rodolfo A. Lasquite (11) People v. Potenciana Evangelista 12289 13618 13679-13680

(12) People v. Ramon N. Guico, Jr. 16516 et. al (13) People v. Ruperto N. Solares (14) People v. Socorro Alto (15) People v. Tomas Baguio (16) People v. Felipa D. de Veyra (17) People v. Felicidad Tabang (18) People v. Jose S. Buguia 16239 13708 130151 13672 12139 14227

(19) People v. Eleno T. Regidor, et 13689-13695 al. (20) People v. Serafin Unilongo (22) People v. Robert P. Wa-acon (23) People v. Linda J. Necessito (24) People v. Simon Flores (25) People v. Alejandro F. Buccat (26) People v. Irma Collera Monge (27) People v. Melencio F. Ilajas (28) People v. Buenaventura Q. Sindac, et al. (29) People v. Jesus A. Bravo (30) People v. Raul S. Tello (31) People v. Celso N. Jacinto 14411 14375 13668 16946 14986 15301 9977 13747-13748 17514 15006 14975 (21) People v. Manuel Parale, et al. 15168

(32) People v. Mayor Antonio Abad 17670 Santos, et al.

(33) People v. Lamberto R. Te (34) People v. Ale Francisco (35) People v. Dir. Felix R. Gonzales, et al. (36) People v. Mayor Adelina Gabatan, et al. (37) People v. Victoria PosadasAdona (38) People v. Roberto Estanislao Chang, et al.

20588 21020 13563 14324 17202 16854

February 14, 1995 July 18, 1995 July 25, 1995 January 3, 1996 January 4, 1996 January 22, 1996 March 13, 1996 April 26, 1996 May 10, 1996 June 28, 1996 August 26, 1996 January 27, 1997 March 31, 1997 March 31, 1997 March 31, 1997 March 31, 1997 May 6, 1997 October 17, 1997 October 27, 1997 November 26, 1997 February 23, 1998 April 7, 1998 April 7, 1998 May 8, 1998

(39) People v. Godofredo Yambao, 16927-16928 et al. (40) People v. Honesto G. Encina (41) People v. Pablito Rodriguez (42) People v. Leandro A. Suller (43) People v. Trinidad M. Valdez (45) People v. Engr. Antonio B. Laguador (46) People v. Paterno C. Belcia, Jr. (47) People v. SPO3 Serafin V. Reyes (48) People v. Mayor Samuel F. Bueser, et al. (49) People v. Romeo C. Monteclaro (51) People v. Aniceto M. Sobrepea 13171 13971 17759 16695 14195 16583-16585 21608 22195-22196 14223

(44) People v. Vivencio B. Patagoc 19651

(50) People v. Rodolfo E. Aguinaldo 20948-20949 23324

(52) People v. Marietta T. Caugma, 17001 et al. (53) People v. Mayor Meliton Geronimo, et al. 19708

(54) People v. Fernando Miguel, et 17600 al. (55) People v. Rogelio A. Aniversario (56) People v. Corazon Gammad 17601 9812-9967

Leao (57) People v. Teresita S. Lazaro (58) People v. Brig. Gen. Raymundo Jarque, et al. (59) People v. Pros. Filotea Estorninos (60) People v. Orlando Mina (61) People v. Vice Gov. Milagros A. Balgos (62) People v. Ceferino Paredes, Jr., et al. (63) People v. Brig. Gen. Rayundo Jarque, et al. (64) People v. Mayor Agustin R. Escao, Jr. (65) People v. Mayor Edgar V. Teves, et al. (66) People v. C/Supt. Alfonso T. Clemente, et al. (67) People v. Dominica Santos (68) People v. Edith G. Tico (69) People v. Sec. Hilarion J. Ramiro, et al. (70) People v. Timoteo A. Garcia, et al. (71) People v. Mayor Jeceju L. Manaay (72) People v. Dir. Rosalinda Majarais, et al. (73) People v. Victor S. Limlingan 17901 20688 23509 19534-19545 23042 18857 18696 23336 23374 22832 19059-19063 23273 23511 24042-24098 24402 24355 24281 June 8, 1998 October 19, 1998 October 19, 1998 October 20, 1998 October 20, 1998 November 17, 1998 January 15, 1999 January 15, 1999 January 15, 1999 January 29, 1999 February 18, 1999 April 20, 1999 August 6, 1999 August 6, 1999 August 6, 1999 August 18, 1999 August 13, 1999 August 31, 1999 September 6, 1999 October 11, 1999 October 11, 1999 December 22, 1999

(74) People v. Nestor S. Castillo, et 24631 al. (75) People v. Apolinar Candelaria (76) People v. Bernardo Billote Resoso 22145 19773-19779

(77) People v. Atty. Alfredo Fordan 24433-24434 Rellora, et al. (78) People v. Faustino Balacuit 98

(79) People v. Mayor Bernardino Alcaria, Jr., et al. (80) People v. Joel R. Lachica, et al. (82) People v. Mayor Eduardo Alarilla (83) People v. Pros. Nilo M. Sarsaba, et al. (84) People v. Philip G. Zamora

23418-23423 24319-24329

January 6, 2000 January 6, 2000 April 27, 2000 May 29, 2000 May 29, 2000 May 29, 2000 Date Submitted for Decision August 11, 2000 August 11, 2000 July 18, 2000 August 11, 2000

(81) People v. Jose Micabalo, et al. 24531-24534 23069 23323 24150

Second Division* Case Title Case No.

(1) People v. Marcelino Cordova, et 18435 al. (2) People v. Benjamin T. Damian (3)People v. Lino L. Labis, et al. (4)People v. Alfredo Sarmiento, et al. 22858 22398 24407-24408

Third Division** Case Title (1) People v. Sergia Zoleta (2) People v. Manuel Solon Y Tenchaves (3) People v. Eliseo L. Ruiz (4) People v. Manuel R. Galvez, et al. Case No. A/R # 016 A/R # 029 13861-13863 13889 Date Submitted for Decision November 16, 1999 December 9, 1999 April 6, 2000 September 30, 1999 August 28, 1999 April 6, 2000 April 6, 2000 April 6, 2000 July 6, 2000 May 5, 2000

(5) People v. Tolentino Mendoza, et 16756 al. (6) People v. Rodrigo Villas (7) People v. Ernesto Vargas (9) People v. Marcelo T. Abrenica, et al. (10) People v. Florencio Garay, et al. Case Title 19563 19574 23522 25657

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

Fourth Division*** Case No. Date Submitted

for Decision (1) People v. Jaime Alos, et al. (2) People v. Antonio R. De Vera (3) People v. Aurora Mantele 17664 23366 24841-42 August 31, 1999 November 26, 1999 May 9, 2000 July 12, 2000

(4) People v. Olegario Clarin, Jr., et 25198 al. Fifth Division**** Case Title (1) People v. Nestor A. Pablo Case No. 13344

Date Submitted for Decision January 16, 1998 January 13, 1999 March 23, 2000 April 16, 1998 September 12, 1995 March 31, 1997 November 14, 1995 March 13, 1996 May 1, 1995 January 9, 1996 March 9, 1998 January 18, 1995 July 24, 1998 December 22, 1995 October 18, 1995 August 31, 1995 November 4, 1997 May 24, 1995

(2) People v. Hernand D. Dabalus, 14397 et al. (3) People v. Eduardo Pilapil (4) People v. P/Sgt. Nazario Marifosque (5) People v. Ignacio B. Bueno (6) People v. Corazon G. Garlit (7) People v. Mayor Rufo Pabelonia, et al. (8) People v. Enrique B. Lenon, et al. 16672 17030 17055 17072 17538 17617

(9) People v. Constancio Bonite, et 17618-17619 al. (10) People v. Jesus Villanueva 17884 (11) People v. Ricardo T. Liwanag, 18008 et al. (12) People v. Ma. Lourdes L. Falcon (13) People v. Luis D. Montero, et al. (14) People v. Roel D. Morales (15) People v. Diosdado T. Gulle (16) People v. Benjamin Sapitula, et al. 18036 18684 18699 18759 18785

(17) People v. Danilo R. Santos, et 18932 al. (18) People v. Pat. Danilo Maraon 19039

(19) People v. Romeo Cabando, et 19378-19379 al. (20) People v. SPO2 Rodolfo Burbos (21) People v. Guillermo M. Viray, et al. (22) People v. Mayor Bonifacio Balahay (23) People v. Enrique Sy, et al. 19593 19614 20427 20487

May 27, 1996 July 6, 1998 August 31, 1998 November 5, 1999 December 17, 1998 March 31, 1998 September 28, 1999 January 16, 1998

(24) People v. PO2 Manuel L. Bien 20648-20649 (25) People v. Felipe L. Laodenio (26) People v. Mayor Walfrido A. Siasico 23066 23427

The Sandiganbayan is a special court created "in an effort to maintain honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy, weed out misfits and undesirables in the government and eventually stamp out graft and corruption."45 We have held consistently that a delay of three (3) years in deciding a single case is inexcusably long.46 We can not accept the excuses of Presiding Justice Sandiganbayan Francis E. Garchitorena that the court was reorganized in 1997; that the new justices had to undergo an orientation and that the Sandiganbayan relocated to its present premises which required the packing and crating of records; and that 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 the same has been set for promulgation on December 8, 2000.49 As we said, a delay in a single case cannot be tolerated, "para muestra, basta un boton." (for an example, one button suffices). It is admitted that there are several other cases submitted for decision as far back as ten (10) years ago that have remained undecided by the First Division, of which Justice Garchitorena is presiding justice and chairman. Indeed, there is even one case, which is a simple motion to withdraw the information filed by the prosecutor. This has remained unresolved for more than seven (7) years (since 1994).50 The compliance submitted by the Sandiganbayan presiding justice incriminates him. The memorandum submitted by the Court 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 that were still pending promulgation51 before the five divisions of the Sandiganbayan are:52 First Division Case Number 1. 11156 2. 11157 Date Submitted Case Number Date Submitted 9/4/97 12/17/98 8/9/91 99. 23336 8/9/91 100. 23374

3. 11158 4. 11159 5. 11160 6. 11999 7. 12102 8. 12127 9. 12139 10. 12289 11. 12305 12. 12306 13. 13015 14. 13171 15. 13353 16. 13521 17. 13563 18. 13618 19. 13668 20. 13672 21. 13679 22. 13680 23. 13689 24. 13690 25. 13691 26. 13692 27. 13693 28. 13694 29. 13695 30. 13708 31. 13747 32. 13748 33. 13971 34. 14223 35. 14227 36. 14230 37. 14287 38. 14324

8/9/91 101. 23418 8/9/91 102. 23419 8/9/91 103. 23420 12/10/90 104. 23421 7/1/91 105. 23422 2/12/90 106. 23423 6/10/92 107. 23509 8/28/91 108. 23511 2/7/91 109. 23540 2/7/91 110. 24042 3/2/92 111. 24043 11/16/95 112. 24044 10/6/90 113. 24045 12/12/99 114. 24046 7/4/95 115. 24047 7/14/91 116. 24048 6/13/93 117. 24049 3/5/92 118. 24050 8/6/91 119. 24051 8/6/91 120. 24052 11/14/92 121. 24053 11/14/92 122. 24054 11/14/92 123. 24055 11/14/92 124. 24056 11/14/92 125. 24057 11/14/92 126. 24058 11/14/92 127. 24059 3/9/92 128. 24060 8/19/94 129. 24061 8/19/94 130. 24062 3/12/95 131. 24063 3/7/97 132. 24064 9/5/92 133. 24065 11/30/90 134. 24066 7/3/94 135. 24067 11/5/95 136. 24068

10/15/99 10/15/99 10/15/99 10/15/99 10/15/99 10/15/99 9/5/98 4/23/99 10/15/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99

39. 14375 40. 14411 41. 14975 42. 14986 43. 15006 44. 15168 45. 15301 46. 16239 47. 16516 48. 16583 49. 16584 50. 16585 51. 16695 52. 16854 53. 16927 54. 16928 55. 16946 56. 17001 57. 17278 58. 17447 59. 17448 60. 17514 61. 17600 62. 17601 63. 17670 64. 17759 65. 17901 66. 18283 67. 18696 68. 18857 69. 19059 70. 19060 71. 19061 72. 19062 73. 19063 74. 19534

5/22/95 137. 24069 1/24/93 138. 24070 9/29/94 139. 24071 12/11/92 140. 24072 11/19/94 141. 24073 3/25/93 142. 24074 3/16/94 143. 24075 12/26/91 144. 24076 11/19/91 145. 24077 8/13/96 146. 24078 8/13/96 147. 24079 8/13/96 148. 24080 8/15/96 149. 24081 1/15/96 150. 24082 12/17/95 151. 24083 12/17/95 152. 24084 8/4/93 153. 24085 9/4/97 154. 24086 5/2/94 155. 24087 9/6/94 156. 24088 9/6/94 157. 24089 8/19/94 158. 24090 8/30/97 159. 24091 8/30/97 160. 24092 11/25/94 161. 24093 6/25/96 162. 24094 5/28/98 163. 24095 2/21/95 164. 24096 8/9/98 165. 24097 10/21/98 166. 24098 2/11/99 167. 24150 2/11/99 168. 24236 2/11/99 169. 24237 2/11/99 170. 24281 2/11/99 171. 24319 9/2/98 172. 24320

4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 4/28/99 1/31/00 2/14/00 2/14/00 5/9/99 11/4/99 11/4/99

75. 19535 76. 19651 77. 19708 78. 19773 79. 19774 80. 19775 81. 19976 82. 19977 83. 19978 84. 19979 85. 20588 86. 20688 87. 20948 88. 20949 89. 21020 90. 22145 91. 22195 92. 22196 93. 22832 94. 23042 95. 23146 96. 23273 97. 23323 98. 23324 Civil Case 1. 0112 2. 0116 3. 0156 Second Division Case No. Criminal Case 1. 19542 2. 19004 3. 22934 4. 20483 5. 20484 4/16/99 9/10/96 10/14/00 8/28/96 8/28/96

9/2/98 173. 24321 11/15/96 174. 24322 8/25/98 175. 24323 5/21/99 176. 24324 5/21/99 177. 24325 5/21/99 178. 24326 5/21/99 179. 24327 5/21/99 180. 24328 5/21/99 181. 24329 5/21/99 182. 24339 2/14/95 183. 24355 7/9/98 184. 24395 10/9/97 185. 24402 10/9/97 186. 24433 7/4/95 187. 24434 7/7/99 188. 24531 6/14/96 189. 24532 6/14/96 190. 24533 10/21/98 191. 24534 8/27/98 192. 24631 11/13/00 193. 24768 4/19/99 194. 6672 3/23/00 195. 9977 8/3/97 1/11/92 10/16/91 3/14/97 Date Submitted

11/4/99 11/4/99 11/4/99 11/4/99 11/4/99 11/4/99 11/4/99 11/4/99 11/4/99 10/20/00 2/18/99 7/13/99 6/17/99 9/6/99 9/6/99 12/16/99 12/16/99 12/16/99 12/16/99 8/9/99 7/8/00 7/11/90 5/10/94

6. 23529 7. 23530 8. 23338 9. 18786 10. 19686 11. 184403 12. 184404 13. 184405 14. 184406 15. 184407 16. 184408 17. 184409 18. 184410 19. 184411 20. 184412 21. 184413 22. 184414 23. 184415 24. 184416 25. 184417 26. 13827 27. 13828 28. 13829 29. 13830 30. 13831 31. 13832 32. 18965 33. 19848 34. 20765 35. 20816 36. 19692 37. 19693 38. 19694 39. 19695 40. 19696 41. 19697

10/23/00 10/23/00 12/2/99 11/28/00 07/2/97 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 12/4/98 8/30/00 8/30/00 8/30/00 8/30/00 8/30/00 8/30/00 11/30/00 3/28/96 8/30/96 3/11/98 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00

42. 19698 43. 19699 44. 19700 45. 19701 46. 19702 47. 19703 48. 19704 49. 19705 50. 19706 51. 19707 52. 23262 53. AR#035 54. 24994 55. 21097 56. 20660 57. 23111 58. 24407 59. 24408 60. 18435 61. 22858 62. 22976 Civil Case 1. 0171 Case Number 1. SCA/005 2. A/R 016 3. A/R 029 4. 487 5. 488 6.489 7.490 8.491 9.11794 10.13861 11. 13862

8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 8/27/00 10/11/00 12/9/00 8/17/00 12/13/00 12/20/00 11/27/00 7/27/00 7/27/00 3/21/00 8/4/00 5/4/99

7/10/00 Third Division Date Submitted 12/18/00 8/5/99 10/2/00 4/8/98 4/8/98 4/8/98 4/8/98 4/8/98 6/10/00 4/6/00 4/6/00

12. 13863 13. 13889 14. 16756 15. 17532 16. 18867 17. 18868 18. 18869 19. 18870 20. 18871 21. 18872 22. 19182 23. 19563 24. 19574 25. 19622 26. 19623 27. 19624 28. 20053 29. 20054 30. 20271 31. 22143 32. 23014 33. 23522 34. 23699 35. 23700 36. 23701 37. 23802 38. 23803 39. 24153 40. 24697 41. 24698 42. 24741 43. 24779 44. 24780 45. 24781 46. 25657

4/6/00 3/25/99 8/25/99 12/11/00 10/5/00 10/5/00 10/5/00 10/5/00 10/5/00 10/5/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 12/18/00 12/18/00 9/23/00 7/6/00 3/22/00 3/22/00 3/22/00 9/10/00 9/10/00 12/18/00 9/10/00 9/10/00 12/7/00 10/28/00 10/28/00 10/28/00 5/5/00 Fourth Division

Case No. 1. 11960 2. 17664 3. 13036 4. 13037 5. 13593 6. 13594 7. 13757 8. 14380 9. 16809 10. 17015 11. 17016 12. 17140 13. 17141 14. 17209 15. 17805 16. 17806 17. 17809 18. 17856 19. 18005 20. 18006 21. 18257 22. 18894 23. 18895 24. 18896 25. 18900 26. 18935 27. 18936 28. 18937 29. 19567 30. 20338 31. 20469 32. 20470 33. 20471 34. 20472 35. 20473

Date Submitted 09/21/98 01/29/98 02/22/99 02/22/99 05/21/96 05/21/96 03/21/97 02/14/95 03/26/00 06/06/94 06/06/94 06/13/96 06/13/96 12/27/96 02/15/00 02/15/00 02/15/00 04/02/00 05/07/96 05/07/96 09/22/97 11/17/00 11/17/00 11/17/00 10/28/00 06/16/00 06/16/00 06/16/00 05/21/96 05/19/97 07/07/00 07/07/00 07/07/00 07/07/00 07/07/00

36. 20474 37. 20475 38. 20476 39. 20664 40. 20685 41. 20828 42. 21093 43. 21131 44. 21778 45. 21779 46. 21780 47. 22891 48. 22892 49. 23007 50. 23058 51. 23059 52. 23060 53. 23061 54. 23062 55. 23366 56. 23415 57. 23534 58. 23708 59. 24447 60. 24448 61. 24464 62. 24465 63. 24742 64. 24841 65. 24842 66. 24851 67. 25198 68. 25389 69. 25543 70. 25658

07/07/00 07/07/00 07/07/00 06/29/96 02/18/00 09/13/00 08/07/99 08/04/96 09/29/97 09/29/97 09/29/97 03/02/00 03/02/00 05/24/99 04/27/00 04/27/00 04/27/00 04/27/00 04/27/00 03/28/99 05/25/00 12/15/00 09/27/00 09/18/00 09/18/00 07/26/00 07/26/00 10/10/00 03/22/00 03/22/00 10/29/00 05/31/00 09/26/00 12/27/00 07/28/00 Fifth Division

Case Number Criminal Cases 1. 14397 2. 16672 3. 17030 4. 17826 5. 17827 6. 18478 7. 18684 8. 18880 9. 19510 10. 19511 11. 19512 12. 19593 13. 19614 14. 19668 15. 20194 16. 20427 17. 20648 18. 20649 19. 20694 20. 21882 21. 22184 22. 22873 23. 22926 24. 23066 25. 23319 26. 23450 27. 23515 28. 24155 29. 24379 30. 24759 31. 24858

Date Submitted 1/4/99 2/13/00 2/19/98 12/9/00 12/9/00 8/21/00 5/29/98 12/6/00 12/4/00 12/4/00 12/4/00 6/5/98 7/31/98 7/26/98 1/8/01 11/3/99 1/4/98 1/4/98 3/11/98 8/12/00 12/16/00 12/4/99 11/13/00 8/16/99 9/30/00 9/16/00 1/29/00 11/30/00 8/27/00 5/5/00 12/28/00

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

Memorandum of the Court Administrator On November 14, 2001, the Court required the Office of the Court Administrator54 to update its 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 report shows that to this day, several cases that were reported pending by the Sandiganbayan on September 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 194. 11999 Date Ponente Submitted Assigned 12/10/90 Garchitorena Reason for Not Deciding Case Under study, submitted before the reorganization Under study, submitted before the reorganization

195. 12102

7/1/91

Garchitorena

196. 12127 197. 12139

2/12/90 6/10/92

Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report Castaneda* Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study

198. 12289

8/28/91

Castaneda

199. 12305-06

2/7/91

Castaneda

200. 13015

3/2/92

Garchitorena

201. 13171

11/16/95 Castaneda

202. 13353

10/6/90

Garchitorena

203. 13521

12/12/99 Garchitorena

204. 13563

7/4/95

Garchitorena

submitted before the reorganization 205. 13618 7/14/91 Castaneda Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization

206. 13668

6/13/93

Castaneda

207. 13672

3/5/92

Castaneda

208. 13679-80

8/6/91

Castaneda

209. 13689-95

11/14/92 Castaneda

210. 13708

3/9/92

Castaneda

211. 13747-48

8/19/94

Castaneda

212. 13971

3/12/95

Castaneda

213. 14223

3/7/97

Death of accused is unconfirmed and dismissal of the case was held in abeyance. (Ong, J.)* Castaneda Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the

214. 14227

9/5/92

215. 14230

11/30/90 Castaneda

216. 14287

7/3/94

Castaneda

217. 14324

11/5/95

Castaneda

218. 14375

5/22/95

Castaneda

reorganization 219. 14411 1/24/93 Castaneda Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization Under study submitted before the reorganization

220. 14975

9/29/94

Castaneda

221. 14986

12/11/92 Castaneda

222. 15006

11/19/94 Castaneda

223. 15168

3/25/93

Castaneda

224. 15301

3/16/94

Castaneda

225. 16239

12/26/91 Castaneda

226. 16516

11/19/91 Castaneda

227. 16583-85

8/13/96

Castaneda

228. 16695

8/15/96

Castaneda

229. 16854

1/15/96

Castaneda

230. 16927-28

12/17/95 Castaneda

231. 16946

8/4/93

Castaneda

232. 17001 233. 17278

9/4/97 5/2/94

Not yet assigned Death of accused is unconfirmed and

dismissal of the case was held in abeyance. (Ong, J.) 234. 17600 235. 17601 236. 17759 237. 17901 238. 18696 239. 18857 240. 19059-63 241. 19534-35 242. 19708 243. 19773-79 244. 20688 245. 20948 246. 20949 247. 21020 8/30/97 8/30/97 6/25/96 5/28/98 8/9/98 Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Ong Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Decided and set for promulgation

10/21/98 Not yet assigned 2/11/99 9/2/98 8/25/98 5/21/99 7/9/98 10/9/97 10/9/97 7/4/95 Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report Ong Set for Promulgation on November 27, 2001

248. 22145 249. 22195-96

7/7/99 6/14/96

Not yet assigned Castaneda Under study, submitted before the reorganization

250. 22832 251. 23042 252. 23146

10/21/98 Not yet assigned 8/27/98 Not yet assigned

11/13/00 Not yet assigned

253. 23273 254. 23323 255. 23324 256. 23336 257. 23374 258. 23418-23 259. 23509 260. 23511 261. 23540 262. 24042-98

4/19/99 3/23/00 8/3/97 9/4/97

Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Not yet assigned

12/17/98 Not yet assigned 10/15/99 Not yet assigned 9/5/98 4/23/99 Not yet assigned Not yet assigned

10/15/99 Not yet assigned 4/28/99 Ong Set for Promulgation on November 27, 2001

263. 24150 264. 24236-37 265. 24281 266. 24319-29 267.24319-29 268. 24355 269.24395 270. 24402 271. 24433-34 272. 24531-34

1/31/00 2/14/00 5/9/99 11/4/99 11/4/99 2/18/99 7/13/99 6/17/99 9/6/99

Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report Not yet assigned Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report Not yet assigned Not yet assigned

12/16/99 Not yet assigned

273. 24631 274. 24768 275. 6672 276. 9977 277. 0112 278. 0116 279. 0156 Summary/Tally Cases Assigned to Garchitorena, PJ. Cases Assigned to Castaneda, J.

8/9/99 7/8/00 7/11/90 5/10/94 1/11/92

Not yet assigned Not yet assigned Garchitorena Garchitorena Under Study, before the reorganization Under Study, before the reorganization

Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report

10/16/91 Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report 3/14/97 Not reported; unaccounted for by Sandiganbayan report 9 42 5 73 9 138 Second Division Date Ponente Submitted Assigned 4/16/99 8/30/00 Reason for Not Deciding Case

Cases Assigned to Ong, J. Cases not yet assigned Cases not accounted for or reported Total Case Number 63. 19542 64. 13827-32 65. 18965

For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN Victorino For promulgation

11/30/00 For retaking of testimony due to incomplete TSN Third Division Date Ponente Submitted Assigned 12/18/00 Ilarde 10/2/00 4/8/98 Illarde With pending demurrer to evidence, submitted, 01/26/01 re Submitted, 03/20/01 Reason for Not Deciding Case --

Case Number 47. SCA/005 48. A/R 029 49. 487-491

50. 11794 51. 17532 52. 18867-72 53. 19182 54. 19563 55. 19574 56. 19622-24 57. 20053-54 58. 20271 59. 22143 60. 23014 61. 23699-701 62. 23802-03 63. 24153 64. 24697-98 65. 24741 66. 24779-81 67. 25657

6/10/00 10/5/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 4/6/00 4/6/00

De Castro

---

12/11/00 Ilarde

Pending trial per order dated 08/17/00 Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97 No Assignment -No Assignment -Unloaded to the 5th Division, 10/13/97 Not with the 3rd Division -----

12/18/00 Illarde 12/18/00 De Castro 9/23/00 3/22/00 9/10/00 9/10/00 12/7/00 5/5/00 De Castro Ilarde

No Assignment -Ilarde De Castro ---

12/18/00 No Assignment --

10/28/00 No Assignment -With Defense pending motion for the re-examination of the Information and the parties' affidavits, etc. Order dated 08/31/01 9 4 8 18 39 Fourth Division** Date Ponente Submitted Assigned Reason for Not Deciding Case

Summary/Tally Cases Assigned to Illarde, J. Cases Assigned to De Castro, J. Cases not yet assigned Others Total Case Number 71. 11960

09/21/98 Draft of decision penned by J. Nario in view of the dissenting opinion of one Justice was referred to a Division of five (5) composed of Nario, Palattao, Ferrer, Badoy, Jr. and De Castro, JJ. 03/26/00 Palattao 04/27/00 Nario ---

72. 16809 73. 23058-62

74. 25389 Case Number 32. 14397 33. 16672 34. 17030 35. 18478 36. 18684 37. 18880 38. 19510-12 39. 19593 40. 19614 41. 20194 42. 20427 43. 20648-49 44. 20694 45. 22926 46. 23066 47. 24155 48. 24379 Summary/Tally

09/26/00 Nario Fifth Division Date Ponente Submitted Assigned 1/4/99 2/13/00 2/19/98 8/21/00 5/29/98 12/6/00 12/4/00 6/5/98 7/31/98 1/8/01 11/3/99 1/4/98 3/11/98 Badoy, Jr. Badoy, Jr. Badoy, Jr. Estrada Badoy, Jr. Badoy, Jr. Estrada Badoy, Jr. Badoy, Jr. Chico-Nazario Badoy, Jr. Badoy, Jr. Estrada

-Reason for Not Deciding Case Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel Complicated Issues Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel Inherited case/lack of personnel

11/13/00 No report, Unaccounted for by the Sandiganbayan report 8/16/99 8/27/00 Badoy, Jr. Estrada Not yet due Draft decision released 7/31/01 11/30/00 Estrada

Cases Assigned to Badoy, J. *** Cases Assigned to Estrada, J.

11 7

Cases Assigned to ChicoNazario, J. No report/Unaccounted For Total

1 1 20

3. Applicability of SC Adm. Circular No. 10-94.-- Supreme Court Circular No. 10-94 applies to the Sandiganbayan. Administrative Circular 10-9457 directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases 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 last week of August of each year a tabulation of all pending cases which shall indicate on a 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 has personally undertaken an inventory of the pending cases in his/her court; that he/she has examined each case record and initialled the last page thereof. The judge shall indicate 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

Date Filed

Pretrial/Arraignment

Initial Hearing

Date of Date Last submitted Hearing for Decision

"CERTIFICATION: "I hereby certify that on (Date/Dates___), I personally conducted a physical inventory of pending cases in the docket of this court, that I personally examined the records of each case and initialled the last page thereof, and I certify that the results of the inventory 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. Mora Decidendi We reiterate the admonition we issued in our resolution of October 10, 2000:59 "This Court has consistently impressed upon judges (which includes justices) to decide cases promptly and expeditiously on the principle that justice delayed is justice denied. Decision making is the primordial and most important duty of the member 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 suspension63 and even dismissal.64 The rule particularly applies to justices of the Sandiganbayan. Delays in the disposition of cases erode the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards, and bring it into disrepute.65 Delays cannot be sanctioned or tolerated especially in the antigraft court, the showcase of the nation's determination to succeed in its war against graft (italics ours)." In Yuchengco v. Republic,66 we urged the Sandiganbayan to promptly administer justice. We stated that the Sandiganbayan has the inherent power to amend and control its processes and orders to make them conformable to law and justice. The Sandiganbayan as the nation's anti-graft court must be the first to avert opportunities for graft, uphold the right of 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 and third divisions of the Sandiganbayan of unloading cases to other divisions despite the fact that these cases have been submitted for decision before them. We cite relevant portions of the memorandum:67

Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fourth Division Division Date where Submitted case for originated Decision 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 3rd 1st 06/06/94 06/06/94 02/14/95 05/07/96 05/07/96 05/30/96 05/30/96 05/30/96 06/13/96 06/13/96 07/01/96 08/05/96 12/27/96 03/21/97 09/22/97

Case No. 1) 17015 2) 17016 3) 14380 4) 18005 5) 18006 6) 13593 7) 13594 8) 19567 9) 17140 10) 17141 11) 20064 12) 21131 13) 17209 14) 13757 15) 18257

Title of the Case PP vs. Raul Zapatos PP vs. Raul Zapatos PP vs. Francisco Ramoran PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac PP vs. Panfilo Bongcac PP vs. Dominador Meninguito PP vs. Dominador Meninguito PP vs. Dominador Meninguito PP vs. Jose Caf, et. al. PP vs. Jose Caf, et. al. PP vs. Ben dela Pena PP vs. Rufino Mamanguin PP vs. Isidro Catapang PP vs. Catalino Daganzo PP vs. Zenaida Sazon

Cases Submitted for Decision When Unloaded to the Fifth Division Case Number 1. 10264 2. 13344 3. 16223 4. 16574 5. 16760 6. 16810 7. 17018 8. 17055 9. 17139 10. 17162 11. 17193 12. 17426 13. 17480 Date Submitted 12/22/90 5/14/97 4/25/94 5/30/95 5/25/95 1/23/96 7/20/94 7/5/95 4/24/94 2/23/95 3/8/94 2/12/94 3/22/94

14. 17538 15. 17567 16. 17598 17. 17617 18. 17618 19. 17619 20. 17640 21. 17661 22. 17666 23. 17884 24. 17902 25. 18008 26. 18423 27. 18687 28. 18759 29. 18785 30. 18932 31. 18988 32. 18999 33. 19039 34. 19378 35. 19379 36. 19679 37. 19712 38. 19907 39. 20487 40. 20624 41. 23427

11/20/95 2/24/93 8/3/94 3/28/96 4/6/95 4/6/95 6/12/95 12/15/94 8/25/97 11/12/95 4/16/95 9/15/97 1/15/96 9/30/94 10/12/95 7/13/95 4/20/97 10/25/95 12/21/95 5/6/95 4/17/96 4/17/96 10/5/95 2/18/95 6/22/95 12/14/96 7/15/95 7/25/97

We suggest a review of the practice of unloading cases that greatly contributes to the backlog of undecided cases. When a case has been heard and tried before a division of the Sandiganbayan, it is ideal that the same division and no other must decide it as far as practicable. We further note that several cases which were earlier reported as undecided by the Sandiganbayan and the OCA have been decided since the reports of September 26, 2000 and January 26, 2001. Nonetheless, the delay in deciding these cases is patent and merits reprobation. 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 time a case is submitted for decision.68 In a case brought before this Court, Presiding Justice Garchitorena admitted fault and that the fault is exclusively his own, in failing to decide the case, though submitted for decision as early as June 20, 1990.69 This case was not even included among pending cases in the Sandiganbayan report of September 26, 2000. The following cases were decided, though beyond the prescribed period: First Division Case Number 14195 21608 20588 19651 17670 17447-48 18283 17514 Submitted for Decision March 31, 1997 March 31, 1997 Date of Promulgation November 10, 2000 November 15, 2000 Ponente Ong Ong Ong Ong Ong Ong Ong Ong

February 14, 1998 January 12, 2001 November 15, 1996 January 26, 2001 November 25, 1994 January 26, 2001 September 6, 1994 February 21, 1995 August 19, 1994 Submitted for Decision August 11, 2000 November 28, 2000 September 10, 1996 August 27, 2000 February 22, 2001 February 23, 2001 April 24, 2001 Date of Promulgation

Second Division Case Number 18403-18417 18435 18786 19004 19692-19707 19848 20483-20484 20660 20765 20816 Ponente

December 4, 1998 February 2, 2001 Victorino March 26, 2001 Victorino March 28, 2001 Legaspi March 16, 2001 Victorino February 26, Sandoval 2001 April 6, 2001 Victorino August 2, 2001 Legaspi February 23, Victorino 2001

March 28, 1996 January 29, 2001 Victorino July 26, 1995 December 20, 2000 August 30, 1996

March 11, 1998 January 25, 2001 Victorino

21097 22858 22934 22976 23111 23262 23338 23529-23530 24407-24408 24994 AR#035

December 13, 2000

June 15, 2001 Victorino February 15, Sandoval 2001 March 1, 2001 Sandoval March 14, 2001 Sandoval May 16, 2001 Victorino December 14, Sandoval 2000 March 28, 2001 Victorino May 30, 2001 Sandoval

August 11, 2000 January 31, 2001 Victorino October 14, 2000 May 4, 1999 November 27, 2000 October 11, 2000 December 2, 1999 October 23, 2000 August 17, 2000 Third Division

August 11, 2000 January 24, 2001 Legaspi December 9, 2000 August 28, 2001 Legaspi Submitted for Decision Date of Promulgation

Case Number A/R 016 13861-13863 13889 16756 23522

Ponente

November 16, 1999 January 26, 2001 Ilarde April 6, 2000 September 30, 1999 August 28, 1999 December 22, Del 2000 Rosario May 10, 2001 Ilarde December 11, Del 2000 Rosario Del Rosario

July 6, 2000 January 12, 2001 Fourth Division

Case Number 17664 17016 17140-41 17209 17805-09; 17814 17856 18005-06 18257 18894-96

Submitted for Decision August 31, 1999 June 6, 1994 December 27, 1996

Date of Promulgation

Ponente

June 1, 2000 Pallatao March 27, 2001 Ferrer April 30, 2001 Ferrer

June 13, 1996 February 6, 2001 Nario

February 15, 2000 October 10, 2001 Palattao April 2, 2000 May 7, 1996 September 22, 1997 November 17, 2000 June 25, 2001 Palattao May 18, 2001 Ferrer July 26, 2001 Ferrer March 20, 2001 Palattao

18900 18935-37 19567 20338 20469 13036-37 13593-94 20470-76 20664 20685 20828 21093 21131 21778-80 22891-92 23007 13757 14380 17015 23366 23415 23534 23708 24464-65 24742 24841-42 25198 25543 25658

October 28, 2000

March 23, 2001 Ferrer

June 16, 2000 January 18, 2001 Palattao May 21, 1996 January 15, 2001 Ferrer May 19, 1997 February 9, 2001 Ferrer July 7, 2000 February 22, 1999 June 25, 2001 Palattao February 28, Ferrer 2001 June 25, 2001 Palattao February 20, Ferrer 2001 March 2, 2001 Palattao

May 21, 1996 January 15, 2001 Ferrer July 7, 2000 June 29, 1996 February 18, 2000

September 13, October 8, 2001 Palattao 2000 August 7, 1999 January 15, 2001 Palattao August 4, 1996 September 29, 1997 March 2, 2000 May 24, 1999 March 21, 1997 February 14, 1995 June 6, 1994 May 25, 2000 December 15, 2000 September 27, 2000 July 26, 2000 October 10, 2000 May 9, 2000 February 13, Ferrer 2001 June 21, 2001 Ferrer December 13, Ferrer 2000 March 14, 2000 Ferrer July 2, 2001 Ferrer April 23, 2001 Ferrer March 27, 2001 Ferrer May 28, 2001 Palattao February 28, Palattao 2001 September 10, Nario 2001 June 26, 2001 Nario March 22, 2001 Ferrer March 7, 2001 Ferrer February 26, Palattao 2001 July 20, 2001 Palattao

November 26, 1999 October 29, 2001 Ferrer

July 12, 2000 February 6, 2001 Nario December 27, 2000 July 28, 2000

24447-48

September 18, 2000 Fifth Division Submitted for Decision December 9, 2000

December 7, Palattao 2001 Date of Promulgation

Case Number 1782617827 19668 21882 22184 22873 23319 23450 23515 24759 24858

Ponente ChicoNazario ChicoNazario ChicoNazario ChicoNazario ChicoNazario ChicoNazario CortezEstrada CortezEstrada ChicoNazario

March 28, 2001

July 26, 1998 February 9, 2001 Badoy, Jr. August 12, 2000 December 16, 2000 December 4, 1999 September 30, 2000 September 16, 2000 January 29, 2000 May 5, 2000 December 28, 2000 July 25, 2001 May 21, 2001 May 31, 2001 April 23, 2001 March 16, 2001 May 28, 2001 July 10, 2001 May 31, 2001

Relief of Presiding Justice At this juncture, the Court cites the case of Canson v. Garchitorena.70 In that case, we admonished 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 Criminal Cases Nos. 23047-23057 to the Regional Trial Court of Quezon City, depriving complainant of 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 the decision cautioned respondent justice that "a repetition of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely."71 Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena sits as the Chairman, First Division, with a backlog 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 backlog of undecided cases. This is not correct. It is the duty of the Presiding Justice and the Chairmen 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 be the ponente. The Constitution provides that a case shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon 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 Supreme Court provided that "A case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence 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 without memoranda; in case the court requires or allows its filing, the case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the filing of the last memorandum or the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case unless the case was previously heard by another judge not the deciding judge in which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety (90) days from the completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same."73 The designation of a ponente to a case is not a difficult administrative task. Administrative sanctions must be imposed. "Mora reprobatur in lege."74 Again, we reiterate the principle that decision-making is the most important of all judicial functions and responsibilities.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 duty and inefficiency.76 As we said in Canson,77 unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a case amounts to a denial of justice, bringing the Sandiganbayan into disrepute, eroding the public 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 can devote himself full time to decision-making until his backlog is cleared. He shall finish this assignment 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 single case within the ninety (90) day period, imposed a fine ranging from five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) to the equivalent of their one month's salary.79According to the report of the Sandiganbayan, as of September 26, 2000, there were three hundred forty one (341) cases submitted for decision before 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 the First Division.80 Even in the updated report, there are one hundred thirty eight (138) cases still undecided in the First Division. In fact, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena admitted that he has a backlog.81 He claimed that one (1) case alone comprises fifty percent (50%) of the backlog. We find this claim exaggerated. We cannot accept that a backlog of three hundred forty one (341) cases in 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. The cases referred to were consolidated as Criminal Case Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leao, 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 not been resolved to this date.82 The First Division has only thirty (30) days from submission to resolve the same. It is now ten (10) months from submission. The expediente and the motion were transmitted to the ponente, Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena, on that date, 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 undecided submitted long ago. For almost one year, not one case was decided/resolved by the Presiding Justice himself.86 Directive WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves: (1) To IMPOSE on Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena a fine of twenty thousand 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 and Chairman, First Division, so that he may DEVOTE himself exclusively to DECISION WRITING, until the backlog of cases assigned to him as well as cases not assigned to 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 First Division inter 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 duties of the office of the Presiding Justice, Sandiganbayan, until further orders from this Court. (3) To DIRECT Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena and the associate justices of the Sandiganbayan to decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for decision as of this date, within three (3) months from their submission, and to resolve motions for 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 therein within six (6) months from notice of this resolution. (4) To ORDER the Sandiganbayan to comply with Supreme Court Administrative Circular 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 rotation of justices among them and other matters leading to the internal operation of the court, and thereafter to submit the said internal rules to the Supreme Court for its approval.87 This directive is immediately executory. SO ORDERED. Davide, Jr., C.J., Bellosillo, Melo, Puno, Vitug, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Quisumbing, Ynares-Santiago, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio, JJ., concur. Buena, J., on official leave. De Leon, Jr., 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 it declares and rules that the judgment of any division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within three (3) months, and not within twelve (12) months, from the date the case was 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 was submitted for decision". The said provision was apparently adopted by the Sandiganbayan in Section 3 of Rule XVIII of its Revised Rules of Procedure which was issued pursuant to P.D. No. 1606. The resolution also cites Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 10-94, dated June 25, 1994 which is addressed "To: All Trial Court Judges and Clerks of Courts, Branch Clerks of Courts" but not to Sandiganbayan Justices or the Clerk of Court and Division 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 Constitution must 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 the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the Court itself. xxx xxx xxx

The Supreme Court in Administrative Circular No. 10-94 has not reduced the 12-month period mentioned in the above quoted constitutional provision insofar as the Sandiganbayan, a collegiate court, is concerned. It is basic that in case of conflict between a constitutional provision on one hand and a statute or an internal rule of procedure of a court 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) the Sandiganbayan has also exclusive appellate jurisdiction "over final judgments, resolutions or 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. Sandiganbayan; Composition; Qualifications; Tenure; Removal and Compensation A special court, of the same level as the Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, to be known as the Sandiganbayan 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 composed of 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) justices who shall be chosen by raffle and added to the division concerned, in which event, the majority rule shall prevail. For that reason and considering also that appeals from the decisions of the Sandiganbayan are to be filed directly with the Supreme Court, the Sandiganbayan as a collegiate trial court, is significantly different from the one-man regional trial court. Subject to the foregoing observations and partial dissent, I concur with the rest of the resolution.

Footnotes
1

Dated July 29, 2000, done in Los Baos, Laguna. Signed by Arthur D. Lim (National President), and the following Governors: Carmencito P. Caingat (Central Luzon), Jose P. Icaonapo, Jr. (Greater Manila), Teresita Infatado-Gines (Southern Luzon), Serafin P. Rivera (Bicolandia), Celestino B. Sabate (Eastern Visayas), David A. Ponce de Leon (Western Visayas), Paulino R. Ersando (Western Mindanao). The following did not take any part in the Resolution: Teofilo S. Pilando, Jr. (Executive Vice President) was on study leave, and Nicanor A. Magno (Governor for Eastern Mindanao) was on sick leave.
2

Rollo, p. 2. Rollo, pp. 3-4.

Rollo, p. 5. Dated September 26, 2000, Rollo, pp. 6-18. Rollo, p. 6. As of September 15, 2000, Rollo, pp. 17-18. Resolution of the Court En Banc dated October 10, 2000, Rollo, pp. 19-20. Rollo, pp. 30-43. Article VIII, Section 15 (1), Constitution. Reply, Rollo, pp. 45-46. Rollo, p. 52.

10

11

12

13

First Division composed of Francis E. Garchitorena (Presiding Justice and Chairman); Catalino R. Castaeda, Jr. (Associate Justice) and Gregory S. Ong (Associate Justice).
14

Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leao, involving 156 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 the Sandiganbayan conducted by the Court Administrator's Judicial Audit Team. The team was composed of Court Administrator Alfredo L. Benipayo, together with Consultants 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. Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 145851, November 22, 2001.

18

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 Rules of 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 (Section 1)."
25

R. A. No. 8249, Section 2, empowers the Sandiganbayan to "hold sessions x x x for the trial and determination of cases filed with it."
26

R. A. No. 8249, Section 1. P.D. No. 1606, Section 9, as amended.

27

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 matters relating to the internal operations of the court which shall be enforced until repealed or modified by the Supreme Court.
29

Ibid. Supra, Note 23, at p. 8. Enumerated under Section 4 of R. A. No. 8249

30

31

32

Under R.A. No. 8249, Section 4, "The Sandiganbayan shall exercise exclusive appellate jurisdiction over final judgments, resolutions or orders of regional trial courts 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 as the "Sandiganbayan."
35

R.A. No. 8249 is silent on this matter. Amendments are to be construed as if they are 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 to promulgate 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 this provision, approved March 30, 1995, effective May 6, 1995.
37

Rule XVIII, Section 3, The Sandiganbayan, Revised Rules of Procedure. R.A. No. 7975, Section 1.

38

39

Cario v. Ofilada, 217 SCRA 206 (1993).

40

Dacumos v. Sandiganbayan, 195 SCRA 833 (1991), discussing the power of a trial court.
41

334 Phil. 369, 386 (1997). 329 Phil. 300, 309-310 (1996).

42

43

All pending before the Sandiganbayan's First Division, of which Presiding Justice Francis E. Garchitorena is the Chairman.
44

Compliance, Rollo, pp. 7-18.

* Second Division composed of Edilberto G. Sandoval (Associate Justice and Chairman); Godofredo L. Legaspi (Associate Justice) and Raul V. Victorino (Associate Justice). ** Third Division composed of Anacleto D. Badoy, Jr. (Associate Justice and Chairman); Teresita Leonardo-De Castro (Associate Justice) and Ricardo M. Ilarde (Associate Justice, Retired November 27, 2001). *** Fourth Division composed of Narciso S. Nario (Associate Justice and Chairman); Rodolfo G. Palattao (Associate Justice) and Nicodemo T. Ferrer (Associate Justice). **** Fifth Division composed of Minita V. Chico-Nazario (Associate Justice and Chairman); Ma. Cristina G. Cortez-Estrada (Associate Justice) and Francisco H. Villaruz, Jr. (Associate Justice).
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: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).
47

See Comment of Presiding Justice, G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan.

48

Criminal Cases Nos. 9812-9967, People v. Corazon Gammad-Leao, involving 156 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 the Court Administrator by Estella Teresita C. Rosete, Executive Clerk of Court, First Division, 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, Talibon, Bohol, For Extension of Time to Decide Civil Case No. 0020 and Criminal Case No. 98-384, 316 SCRA 219 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485 (1999).
54

In a Memorandum signed by Chief Justice Hilario G. Davide, Jr. addressed to Justice (Ret.) Pedro A. Ramirez, OCA Consultant.
55

Rollo, pp. 489-498. Compliance Report of Justice Ramirez, Rollo, pp. 341-354, at pp. 342-348

56

* 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 on September 25, 1997. *** The case assignments of Justice Badoy, Jr. were all transferred to Justice Villaruz when Justice Badoy, Jr. transferred to the Third Division. The report of the Sandiganbayan with respect case assignments is dated September 30, 2001 (See Annex "E").
57

Dated June 29, 1994. A(2) a.-c., Administrative Circular 10-94. Resolution of the Court En Banc, Rollo, pp. 19-21, at p. 20. Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997). Cueva v. Villanueva, 365 Phil. 1, 10 (1999).

58

59

60

61

62

Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-Lapu City, 352 Phil. 223, 232 (1998); Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., 347 Phil. 671, 674 (1997).
63

Bolalin v. Occiano, 334 Phil. 178 (1997).

64

Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, 354 Phil. 8 (1998);Abarquez v. Rebosura, 349 Phil. 24, 38 (1998); Longboan v. Hon. Polig, 186 SCRA 557 (1990).
65

Sta. Ana v. Arinday, Jr., supra, 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. G. R. No. 145851, Licaros v. Sandiganbayan, filed on November 23, 2000. 370 Phil. 287 (1999). Supra, at p. 288. Article VIII, Sec. 15 (2), Constitution. Supreme Court Circulars, Orders and Resolutions, October 1999 ed., pp. 144-145.

69

70

71

72

73

74

Delay is reprobated in law (Black's Law Dictionary, 4th Edition, 1951, West Publishing Co., p. 1160.
75

Rivera v. Lamorena, 345 Phil. 880, 883 (1997).

76

Sabado v. Cajigal, 219 SCRA 800 (1993); Casia v. Gestopa, Jr., 371 Phil. 131 (1999); Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC, Brs. 29, 56 and 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, 316 SCRA 272 (1999); Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge Narciso M. Bumanglag, Jr., 365 Phil. 492 (1999); Re: report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 68, Camiling, Tarlac, 364 Phil. 530 (1999); Bernardo v. Fabros, 366 Phil. 485 (1999); Louis Viutton S. A. v. Villanueva, 216 SCRA 121 (1992); Imposed in a case where there was failure to decide a case despite the lapse of years from its submission (Lambino v. de Vera, 341 Phil. 62, 67 (1997).
77

Supra, Note 61, at p. 303-304.

78

Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, DingleDuenas, Iloilo, 345 Phil. 884 (1997).
79

Supra, Note 78. As of December 21, 2000. Supra, Note 14, Rollo, p. 56.

80

81

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

Supra, pp. 17-18 of this resolution.

86

On December 08, 2000, Presiding Justice Garchitorena decided a single consolidated case of 156 components, Crim. Cases Nos. 9812 to 9967, for estafa through falsification of public documents.
87

R. A. No. 7975, Section 4.