Re: Problem of Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan

A.M. No. 00-8-05-SC. – November 28, 2001

RESOLUTION – J. PARDO

Topic: Periods for Deciding Cases

“Submitted to the Court for consideration is a resolution of the Board of governors, 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.”

FACTS:
 On July 31, 2000, the IBP National President Arthur Lim transmitted a resolution to the Court addressing
the problem of delays in cases pending before the Sandiganbayan (SB)
o Because of this, the Court required the SB through Presiding Justice Francis 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 dates they were deemed
submitted for decision or resolution
 The Sandiganbayan complied with the request, and their list showed a total of 415 cases
for decision remaining undecided long beyond reglementary period to decide – one of the
cases submitted May 24, 1990 (more than 10 years ago)
 November 21, 2000, the Court directed then Court Administrator Alfredo Benipayo (OCA) to conduct a
judicial audit of the SB and to submit a report on it
o In a letter dated December 4, 2000, the CJ Presiding Justice Garchitorena admitted that the 1 st
division of the SB has a backlog of cases, and that one case alone made the backlog of the 1st
division so large, it would reduce the backlog by 50% once the case is set for promulgation
 January 26, 2001, the OCA submitted a memorandum to the Court stating that the causes of delay in the
Sandiganbayan are:
o Failure of the Office Special Prosecutor to submit reinvestigation report despite the lapse of
several years
o Filing of numerous incidents such as Motion to Dismiss, quash, demurrer etc. that remain
unresolved for years
o Suspension of proceedings because of a pending petition for certiorari and prohibition with the
SC
o Cases remain unacted upon
o Unloading of cases already submitted for decision even if the ponente is still in service
 Court then stated that they consider “ex mero motu” the resolution of the IBP as an administrative
complaint against Presiding Justice Garchitorena for “serious delays in the decision of cases and in the
resolution of motions and other pending incidents before the divisions of the SB” amounting to
incompetence, inefficiency, gross neglect of duty and misconduct of office
o No need to conduct a formal investigation in view of admission of PJ Garchitorena that there are
indeed hundreds of cases pending decision beyond the reglementary period of (90) days from their
submission

ISSUES:
1. What is the reglementary period within which the SB must decide/resolve cases falling within its
jurisdiction?
2. W/N there are cases submitted for decision remaining undecided by the Sandiganbayan or any of
its divisions beyond the aforestated reglementary period
3. W/N the SC Administrative Circular No. 1094 is applicable to the Sandiganbayan

HELD:
 1. What is the reglementary period within which the SB must decide/resolve cases falling within its
jurisdiction? – 3 Months
 The SC stated that there were two views: 12 months and 3 months  Art. VIII Sec 15 (1) “All cases or
matter filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within 24 months from the
date of submission to the Supreme Court, and unless reduced by the Supreme Court, 12 months for all
lower collegiate courts, and 3 months for all other lower courts.”
o The above provision does not apply to the SB. The SB is a special court of the same level as the
Court of Appeals and possessing all the inherent powers of a court of justice, with functions of a
trial court.
 The SB was originally empowered to promulgate own rules of procedure – however Congress later on
repealed this and instead prescribed that the Rules of Court shall apply to all cases and proceedings filed
with the SB
o The law creating the SB P.D. No. 1606 is clear on the issue, 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 (3)
months from the date the case was submitted for decision.”
o On September, 1984, the SB promulgated its own rules Sec 3. “Maximum period to decide cases
– the judgment or final order of a division of the Sandiganbayan shall be rendered within (3)
months from the date the case was submitted for decision.”
o Art VIII Sec 5 (5) of the Consti states that “Rules of procedure of special courts and quasi-
judicial bodies shall remain effective unless disapproved by the Supreme Court.”
 “Given the clarity of the rule that does not distinguish, we hold that the (3) month period, not the (12) month
period to decide cases applies to the Sandiganbayan.”
 Department of Agrarian Reform Adjudication Board v. CA and Cabagnot v. COMELEC both state
that the body cannot suspend its own rules, or except a case from operation  the afore-cited cases applies
“mutatis mutandis” to the SB

2. W/N there are cases submitted for decision remaining undecided by the Sandiganbayan or any of
its divisions beyond the afore-stated reglementary period – YES
 Some cases even as long as 10 years ago
 SB is a special court created “in an effort to maintain honesty and efficiency in the bureaucracy in the
government and eventually stamp out graft and corruption”  a delay of even (3) years in deciding a single
case is inexcusably long – the Court cannot accept the excuses of PJ Garchitorena that the court was
reorganized in 1997 which led to the backlog of cases
o The SC also finds the excuse that one case alone comprises more that 50% of the 1st division’s
backlogs unacceptable
 The SC stated that PJ 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
 As of January 26, 2001, the OCA submitted a report which showed that there were still 197 pending cases
as of that date
3. W/N the SC Administrative Circular No. 1094 is applicable to the Sandiganbayan – YES
 The Administrative Circular directs all trial judges to make a physical inventory of the cases in their dockets
– given the rationale behind this, efficiency and organization, the circular is applicable to the SB with
respect to cases within its original and appellate jurisdiction

Mora Decidendi
“The Court has consistently impressed upon judges 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… Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency that warrants disciplinary sanction, including fine,
suspension, and even dismissal. 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.”

Practice of Unloading Cases

 The OCA report stated that there is a practice in the first and third divisions of the SB of unloading cases
to other divisions despite the fact that these cases have been submitted for decision before them  the SC
suggests a review of this practice since it contributes to the backlog of undecided cases

Relief of Presiding Justice

 The Court cited the case of Canson v. Garchitorena wherein PJ Garchitorena was admonished for
deliberate delayed action on the case depriving the complainant of his right to a just and speedy trial. The
dispositive portion of the case stated that the the respondent, Garchitorena, is cautioned that a “repetition
of the same or similar act in the future shall be dealt with more severely.”
 PJ Garchitorena sits as the Chairman of the 1st division, with at least 73 cases remaining to be unassigned
for the writing of an opinion, though submitted for decision  it is the duty of the PJ and the Chairmen of
divisions to assign the ponente as soon as the case is declared submitted for decision, if he fails to me the
assignment, he shall be deemed to be the ponente
o “the designation of a ponente to a case is not a difficult administrative task”
 PJ Garchitorena should be relieved of all trial and administrative work as PJ and chairman so that he can
devote himself full time to decision-making until his backlog is cleared. He shall finish this assignment not
later than (6) months from the promulgation of this resolution
 November, 2001, almost a year later there are still (138) cases undecided submitted long ago  FOR
ALMOST ONE YEAR, NOT ONE CASE WAS DECIDED/RESOLVED BY THE PRESIDING JUSTICE
HIMSELF

RULING:
WHEREFORE, in view of all the foregoing, the Court resolves:
1. To IMPOSE on PJ Garchitorena a 20,000 peso fine for inefficiency and gross neglect of duty
2. Effective December 1, 2001, PJ Garchitorena is relieved of his duty so that he may devote himself
exclusively to decision writing. No unloading of cases to other divisions
3. To direct PJ Garchitorena and other associate justices to decide/resolve the undecided cases submitted for
decision as of this date within (3) months
4. To ORDER the SB to comply with SC Administrative Circular 10-94 effective immediately
5. To DIRECT the SB to adopt internal rules

SO ORDERED

CONCURRING AND DISSENTING OPINION – J. DE LEON JR.

 Disagrees with the resolution that judgments of the SB shall be rendered within 3 months from date
submitted for decision  States Art. VIII Sec 15 which states that the decisions for lower collegiate courts
must be submitted within 12 months – and he compares it to the Administrative Circular of the SC
o He states that the Circular did not reduce the 12-month period indicated in the Constitution insofar
as the Sandiganbayan, a collegiate court, is concerned
o “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.”
 Concurs with the penalties imposed on PJ Garchitorena