OCA v.

Fuentes
692 SCRA 429

FACTS: A judicial audit was conducted at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 49,
Tagbilaran City, Bohol, presided over by respondent Judge Fernando G. Fuentes III.
The audit report revealed that the aforementioned court had 272 pending cases in its
docket. Of these cases, 83 were deemed submitted for decision. The report also
revealed that of the cases submitted for decision, 70 were already beyond the
reglementary period to decide, with some cases submitted for decision as far back
as 2003. Further, 31 of these 70 cases were appealed from the first-level courts, with
two criminal cases involving detention prisoners. The OCA directed the respondent
to cease and desist from hearing cases in his court and devote his time in deciding
cases and resolving pending incidents/motions. He complied but had to ask for an
extension of time twice because of purely personal matters. It came to a point that an
administrative case was filed against him by a plaintiff of one of his cases because of
a delay in rendering his judgment since it has been seventeen months since the
case was submitted for decision. The OCA recommended that Judge Fuentes III be
found guilty of gross inefficiency for his failure to decide 70 cases within the
reglementary period.

ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent is guilty of gross inefficiency.

HELD: Yes, under the 1987 Constitution, trial judges are mandated to decide and
resolve cases within 90 days from submission for decision or resolution. Corollary to
this constitutional mandate, Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct
for the Philippine Judiciary requires judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently,
fairly, and with reasonable promptness. The mandate to promptly dispose of cases
or matters also applies to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending
before the magistrate. The unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending
incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes gross
inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an administrative sanction against the
defaulting magistrate. The duty of a judge is not only confined to hearing and trying
cases. It is equally important to decide the same within the period mandated by law.
Judge Fuentes III who, at the time of the judicial audit, is the Executive Judge,
should have been the role model of a diligent, efficient, and hardworking judge. But
on the contrary, he was the opposite thereof. If for some reason he could not dispose
of cases within the reglementary period, all he had to do was to ask for a reasonable
extension of time. In conclusion, we exhort all judges to perform their judicial duties
with reasonable promptness because the honor and integrity of the judicial system
are measured not only by the fairness and correctness of the decisions rendered but
also by the expediency with which disputes are resolved. Judge Fuentes was found
guilty of the offense with a stern warning that a repetition of a similar offense shall be
dealt with more severely.