A.M. No. 93-11-1311-RTC. July 26, 1994.
RE: REPORT ON THE AUDIT AND INVENTORY OF CASES IN THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 11, BALAYAN, BATANGAS.

FACTS

This administrative matter arose from an audit of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 11, Balayan, Batangas, presided by Judge Ernesto H. Gorospe, due to reports of delay. The audit team encountered significant obstacles: Judge Gorospe was absent on the audit date, and the court interpreter, the alleged custodian of the docket book and several case records, was also absent. No other court personnel could locate these essential documents. The audit revealed a caseload of 157 cases, with numerous cases unacted upon for a long time, several submitted for decision but undecided, and missing records. The court calendar also showed hearings were not conducted daily.
Judge Gorospe, required to explain, cited health issues (hospitalization for pneumonia and tuberculosis) and additional administrative burdens from being designated as acting judge for two other branches and as Executive Judge. He claimed he had since updated and decided all pending cases. However, he failed to provide specific details on the status of the cases cited in the audit report or explain the mismanagement leading to missing records.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Ernesto H. Gorospe is administratively liable for inefficiency, neglect of duty, and failure to decide cases within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, Judge Gorospe is administratively liable. The Court found his explanations, while partially mitigating, insufficient to absolve him. His admissions and the audit findings established remissness in his duties. The inability to produce the docket book and case records due solely to one employee’s absence indicated poor court administration, violating Canon 3, Rule 3.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring diligent discharge of administrative responsibilities.
More critically, Judge Gorospe violated the constitutional mandate to decide cases within three months and to issue certifications for delays (Sec. 15[1][2] and [3], Art. VIII). He offered no acceptable justification for the long-unacted cases and undecided submitted cases. His failure to formally notify the Court of his health and administrative difficulties to seek extensions exacerbated his liability, as it prevented timely remedial measures. This neglect eroded public confidence in the judiciary. Considering his health issues and added duties as mitigating factors, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with a stern warning against repetition.