Here’s a lesson for trial court judges: The Supreme Court (SC) asked a retired judge to pay a fine of P100,000 for failing to resolve 191 cases before his term ended in 2011.
Judge Benedicto Cobarde of Lapu-Lapu City was found administratively guilty of “undue delay in rendering decisions” within the mandatory 90-day period.
The fine will be deducted from Cobarde’s retirement benefits. This is the fourth time Cobarde was fined for not being able to resolve cases within the reglementary period.
“Indeed, the inability of Judge Cobarde to perform his duties is manifest in his failure to decide 191 cases within the mandatory three-month reglementary period without any valid excuse,” said SC clerk of court Enriqueta Vidal in a notice to concerned offices in the judiciary.
The High Court said Cobarde should have requested for additional time to decide on the cases.
“No less than the 1987 Constitution mandates lower courts to decide or resolve all cases or matters within the reglementary period of three months. Specifically, the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to dispose of their business promptly and decide cases within the required period,” Vidal stressed.
She also cited an SC Administrative Circular No. which requires all judges “to scrupulously observe the periods prescribed in the Constitution for deciding cases, because failure to comply therewith violates the constitutional right of the parties to speedy disposition of their cases.”
In 2011, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) acted on Cobarde’s request for a Certificate of Clearance to support his application for compulsory retirement benefits.
The OCA, through the clerk of court of the Regional Trial Court Branch 53 in Lapu-Lapu City, found that Cobarde failed to resolve 191 cases submitted for decision that were already beyond the reglementary period at the time of his retirement.
After evaluation, the OCA recommended that a fine of P200,000 be imposed against Cobarde for gross inefficiency. The High Court en banc affirmed OCA’s finding but reduced the penalty to P100,000.
Under the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious offense punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one month and not more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000 but not exceeding P20,000.
But in Cobarde’s case, the High Court noted that this was not the first time that an administrative case of the same nature was filed against the retired judge so it is proper to impose a penalty exceeding the P20,000-limit.
Penalties for Cobarde’s previous similar cases were P20,000, Pl5,000, and P5,000.
Cobarde apologized and explained that it was unintentional.
Judge Simeon Dumdum of the RTC Branch 7 said they must resolve cases within 90 days.
“It’s a matter of managing cases,” he said.
If a judge finds it hard to resolve cases on time, he needs to ask for extension from the Office of the Court of Administrator.
Executive Justice Gabriel Ingles of the Court of Appeals Cebu Station said they have the duty to administer justice without undue delay.
Integrated Bar of the Philippines Cebu Chapter President Elaine Bathan said judges should be conscious about deciding on cases within the required period.
But Bathan said the SC should also take note of the need to increase the number of courts in Cebu.