SC orders suspension of judge in GenSan

THE Supreme Court ordered the suspension of a General Santos City Regional Trial Court judge who took 10 years to rule on a rape case.

In a per curiam decision, the Supreme Court en banc meted a two-year suspension of General Santos City Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 35 Presiding Judge Oscar Noel Jr. for gross neglect of duty in his capacity as assisting judge for the town of Alabel in the province of Sarangani.

Based on court records, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) asked Judge Noel to comment on an administrative complaint alleging delay in a criminal case that has been pending in his sala since 2010.

Noel said it was another judge who was presiding over a case that was filed on Oct. 30, 2007 against one Jimmy de la Torre who was accused of rape.

He said he took over the case only on Feb. 11, 2010. He also justified, in his comment, that he was presiding over three different courts — General Santos City RTC Branch 35; Justice on Wheels (JOW) Polomolok, South Cotabato; and JOW Sarangani Province. De la Torre’s case was being heard in the town of Maasim in Sarangani Province, where the JOW Bus traveled to and from General Santos City only once a month.

Noel reasoned that given the volume of cases and time constraints, the case could not be heard frequently. In addition, resetting hearings also takes two to three months.

Upon transmission of the administrative case to the Judicial Integrity Board, the JIB recommended that Judge Noel be found guilty of gross neglect of duty in the performance or nonperformance of official functions, with a fine of P250,000.

The high court adopted the findings and recommendations of the JIB, but modified the penalty to a two-year suspension.

The Supreme Court cited Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the Constitution, which imposed on lower courts the “duty to decide or resolve cases or matters within three months.

“Furthermore, the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. This is reiterated in the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which requires judges to perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness.”

The Supreme Court noted how the judge allowed the case to lag for more than 10 years since he took over the case in 2010.

As cited in Judge Noel’s chronology of events, the testimony of the witnesses for the defense started on Dec. 1, 2014. Yet, six years after, when the authority of Judge Noel to hear onboard the mobile court was revoked by the high tribunal on Aug. 19, 2020, the prosecutor’s cross-examination of the defense witness still had not been finished, the Supreme Court pointed out.

The high court said Judge Noel should have reasonably exercised his discretion to allow postponements and continuances of the proceedings.

The Supreme Court cautioned judges with cases being heard under the JOW program. Given the primary aim of the JOW to speed up the resolution of cases to address the perennial criticism of backlog of cases, judges at the forefront of this endeavor are expected to exhibit vitality and vigor in disposing cases.

While the high tribunal’s awareness of the heavy caseload of the trial courts has often moved it to allow reasonable extensions of time for trial judges to decide their cases, judges are reminded that without an order of extension granted by the Supreme Court, a failure to decide a single case within the required period rightly constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.

Records show that Judge Noel failed to request an extension of time within which to decide the case despite his alleged heavy workload. Thus, the high court found Judge Noel unmindful of his duties and lacking professional competence in court management.

The Supreme Court further stressed that if judges do not possess efficiency and dedication in the prompt disposition of cases, delay is inevitable, to the prejudice of litigants. Judges must hence be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in discharging their obligation to administer justice promptly.“No judge can choose to prolong, on his own, the period for deciding cases beyond the period authorized by law,” said the Supreme Court.