4/4/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

A.M. No. 09-9-163-MTC. May 6, 2010.*

RE: CASES SUBMITTED FOR DECISION BEFORE HON. TERESITO A.

ANDOY, former Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal.

Remedial Law; 90-day Period; Judges; Rules prescribing the time within which
certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly and
speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the 90-day period is mandatory.—Article VIII, Section
15(1) of the 1987 Constitution mandates lower court judges to decide a case within the
reglementary period of 90 days. The Code of Judicial

_______________

* EN BANC.

299

VOL. 620, MAY 6, 2010 299

Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon.

Teresito A. Andoy, former Judge, Municipial Trial
Court, Cainta, Rizal

Conduct under Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 likewise enunciates that judges should
administer justice without delay and directs every judge to dispose of the court’s
business promptly within the period prescribed by law. Rules prescribing the time
within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in
the orderly and speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the 90-day period is mandatory.
Same; Same; Same; Judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch; Any delay, no
matter how short, in the disposition of case undermines people’s faith and confidence in
the judiciary. It also deprives the parties of their right to the speedy disposition of their
cases.—Judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Any delay, no matter how
short, in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the
judiciary. It also deprives the parties of their right to the speedy disposition of their
cases.

ADMINISTRATIVE MATTER in the Supreme Court. Request for Certification

of Clearance.
   The facts are stated in the opinion of the Court.

LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:

Before the Court is the request for Certificate of Clearance of Judge Teresito
A. Andoy, former Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Cainta, Rizal, in
support of his application for Retirement/Gratuity Benefits under Republic Act
No. 910,1 as amended.
Judge Andoy compulsorily retired on October 3, 2008. In a Letter2  dated
August 24, 2009, he requested the approval of his retirement papers and that,
if needed, a certain amount be deducted from his retirement benefits. He asked
for the payment of his earned vacation/sick leaves, as well as the release of his
withheld September 2008 Special Allowance for the Judiciary (SAJ) allowance,
loyalty award checks, and all

_______________

1 Providing for the Retirement of Justices and All Judges in the Judiciary.
2 Rollo, pp. 2-3.
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017148d7bd0aed0601a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 1/6
300
4/4/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

300 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Teresito
A. Andoy, former Judge, Municipial Trial Court,
Cainta, Rizal

other allowances to which he was entitled prior to his retirement. Per the
computation of the Fiscal Management Office of the Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), Judge Andoy had earned vacation/sick leaves amounting
to P966,162.86, SAJ allowance totaling P24,845.10, and a loyalty award check
for the amount of P3,500.00. Judge Andoy also admitted having unaccounted
property accountabilities in the amount of P16,284.20 and a pending
administrative case (MTJ-09-1738), but expressed his willingness to pay for
whatever penalty would be imposed upon him by means of deduction from his
retirement benefits. In the end, Judge Andoy prayed that a clearance be issued
with respect to the monetary value of his accumulated leave credits so that the
release of his retirement benefits may already be processed.
Based on the list prepared by Celestina I. Cuevas,3 and certified by Leticia C.
Perez, Clerk of Court II, MTC, Cainta, Rizal, Judge Andoy failed to resolve
within the reglementary period 139 cases submitted for decision.
On September 18, 2009, the OCA submitted its report with the following
recommendation:
“In view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that Hon. Teresito A. Andoy,
former Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal, be FINED in the amount of
SEVENTY THOUSAND (P70,000.00) PESOS for gross inefficiency for failure to decide
the one hundred thirty-nine (139) cases submitted for decision before him within the
reglementary period, the amount to be deducted from the retirement/gratuity benefits
due him.”

The Court agrees in the findings of the OCA, except as to the recommended
penalty.
Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution mandates lower court
judges to decide a case within the reglementary period of 90 days. The Code of
Judicial Conduct under

_______________

3 Local government official detailed at the Municipal Trial Court, Cainta, Rizal.

301

VOL. 620, MAY 6, 2010 301

Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Teresito
A. Andoy, former Judge, Municipial Trial Court,
Cainta, Rizal

Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 likewise enunciates that judges should administer justice
without delay and directs every judge to dispose of the court’s business
promptly within the period prescribed by law. Rules prescribing the time
within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless
delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the 90-day period
is mandatory.4
Judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Any delay, no matter how
short, in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith and confidence
in the judiciary.5  It also deprives the parties of their right to the speedy
disposition of their cases.6
The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases
promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice
delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and
should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions
for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our
people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.
Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017148d7bd0aed0601a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 2/6
constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative
4/4/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

The inefficiency of Judge Andoy is evident in his failure to decide 139 cases
within the mandatory reglementary period for no apparent reason. Some of
these cases have been sub-

_______________

4 Gachon v. Devera, Jr., G.R. No. 116695, June 20, 1997, 274 SCRA 540, 549, citing Cf. Valdez v.
Ocumen, 106 Phil. 929, 933 (1960) and Alvero v. De la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428, 434 (1946).
5 Office of the Court Administrator v. Eisma, 439 Phil. 601, 609; 391 SCRA 10, 17 (2002).
6 Floresta v. Ubiadas, 473 Phil. 266, 279; 429 SCRA 270, 280 (2004).
7 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 22, Kabacan, North Cotabato, 468
Phil. 338, 345; 424 SCRA 206, 211 (2004).

302

302 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Teresito
A. Andoy, former Judge, Municipial Trial Court,
Cainta, Rizal

mitted for resolution as early as 1997. Judge Andoy, upon finding himself
unable to comply with the 90-day period, could have asked the Court for a
reasonable period of extension to dispose of the cases. The Court, mindful of the
heavy caseload of judges, generally grants such requests for extension.8  Yet,
Judge Andoy also failed to make such a request.
Under the new amendments to Rule 1409 of the Rules of Court, undue delay
in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge, for which the
respondent judge shall be penalized with either (a) suspension from office
without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three
months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00, but not more than P20,000.00.
The fines imposed on each judge may vary, depending on the number of
cases undecided or matters unresolved by said judge beyond the reglementary
period, plus the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances, such as
the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age
of the judge, etc.
The Court imposed a fine of P10,000.00  upon a judge who failed to decide
one case within the reglementary period, without offering an explanation for
such delay;10another who left one motion unresolved within the prescriptive
period;11  and a third who left eight cases unresolved beyond the extended
period of time granted by the Court, taking into con-

_______________

8  Office of the Court Administrator v. Dilag, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1914, 30 September 2005, 471
SCRA 186, 191-192.
9 Section 9(1) in relation to Section 11(B); En Banc Resolution in A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC dated
September 11, 2001 (Re: Proposed Amendment to Rule 140 of the Rules of Court Regarding the
Discipline of Justices and Judges).
10 Saceda v. Gestopa, Jr., 423 Phil. 420, 425; 372 SCRA 193, 203 (2001).
11 Ala v. Ramos, Jr., 431 Phil. 275, 293; 381 SCRA 540, 556 (2002); Isip, Jr. v. Nogoy, 448 Phil.
210, 223; 400 SCRA 181, 192 (2003).

303

VOL. 620, MAY 6, 2010 303

Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Teresito
A. Andoy, former Judge, Municipial Trial Court,
Cainta, Rizal

sideration that the judge involved was understaffed, burdened with heavy
caseload, and hospitalized for more than a month.12 In another case, the judge
was fined P10,100.00 for failing to act on one motion.13 The Court fixed the fine
at P11,000.00 when the judge failed to resolve a motion for reconsideration and
other pending incidents relative thereto because of alleged lack of manpower in
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017148d7bd0aed0601a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 3/6
his sala;14 when the judge decided a case for forcible entry only after one year
4/4/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

consideration to the fact that said judge was still grieving from the untimely
demise of his daughter;15 when a judge resolved a motion after an undue delay
of almost eight months;16  when a judge resolved a motion only after 231
days;17  when a judge failed to resolve three cases within the reglementary
period;18  and when a judge failed to resolve a motion to cite a defendant for
contempt, the penalty being mitigated by the judge’s immediate action to
determine whether the charge had basis.19  In one case, the judge was
fined  P12,000.00  for failing to decide one criminal case on time, without
explaining the reason for the delay.20 Still in other cases, the maximum fine

_______________

12 Re: Request of Judge Sylvia G. Jurao for Extension of Time to Decide Criminal Case No. 5812
and 29 Others Pending Before the RTC-Branches 10 and 12, San Jose, Antique, 455 Phil. 212, 227;
407 SCRA 464, 474 (2003).
13 Custodio v. Quitain, 450 Phil. 70, 77; 402 SCRA 58, 64 (2003).
14 Gonzales v. Hidalgo, 449 Phil. 336, 342; 401 SCRA 343, 348 (2003).
15 Samson v. Mejia, 452 Phil. 115, 120; 404 SCRA 94, 98 (2003).
16 Visbal v. Buban, 443 Phil. 705, 710; 395 SCRA 584, 598 (2003).
17 Cabahug v. Dacanay, 457 Phil. 521, 526; 410 SCRA 413, 418 (2003).
18 Visbal v. Sescon, 456 Phil. 552, 559; 409 SCRA 293, 299 (2003).
19 Morta v. Bagagñan, 461 Phil. 312, 325; 415 SCRA 624, 633-634 (2003).
20 Bontuyan v. Villarin, 436 Phil. 560, 570; 388 SCRA 11, 18 (2002).

304

304 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Teresito
A. Andoy, former Judge, Municipial Trial Court,
Cainta, Rizal

of  P20,000.00  was imposed by the Court on a judge who was delayed in
rendering decisions in nine criminal cases, failed altogether to render decisions
in 18 other cases, and promulgated decisions in 17 cases even after he had
already retired;21 a judge who failed to decide 48 cases on time and to resolve
pending incidents in 49 cases despite the lapse of a considerable length of
time;22  a judge who unduly delayed deciding 26 cases because of poor
health;23and a judge who failed to decide 56 cases, without regard for the
judge's explanation of heavy caseload, intermittent electrical brownouts, old
age, and operation on both his eyes, because this already constituted his second
offense.24
There were cases in which the Court did not strictly apply the Rules,
imposing fines well-below those prescribed. The Court only imposed a fine
of  P1,000.00  for a judge’s delay of nine months in resolving complainant’s
Amended Formal Offer of Exhibits, after finding that there was no malice in
the delay and that the delay, was caused by the complainant himself.25  In
another case, a judge was fined  P1,000.00  for his failure to act on two civil
cases and one criminal case for an unreasonable period of time.26  The Court
also imposed a fine

_______________

21 Re: Cases Left Undecided by Retired Judge Antonio E. Arbis, Regional Trial Court, Branch
48, Bacolod City, 443 Phil. 496, 502; 395 SCRA 398, 403 (2003).
22 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTCC-Branches 1, 2 & 3, Mandaue City, 454
Phil. 1, 19-20; 406 SCRA 285, 299 (2003).
23 Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 3, 5, 7, 60
and 61, Baguio City, 467 Phil. 1, 18-19; 422 SCRA 408, 424 (2004).
24 Office of the Court Administrator v. Noynay, 447 Phil. 368, 374; 399 SCRA 261, 266-267
(2003).
25 Beltran, Jr. v. Paderanga, 455 Phil. 227, 236; 407 SCRA 475, 481 (2003).
26 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court, Sibulan, Negros
Oriental, 347 Phil. 139, 145-146; 282 SCRA 463, 469 (1997).

305

VOL. 620, MAY 6, 2010

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017148d7bd0aed0601a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False
305 4/6
4/4/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

A. Andoy, former Judge, Municipial Trial Court,

Cainta, Rizal

of P5,000.00 on a judge, who was suffering from cancer, for his failure to decide
five cases within the reglementary period and to resolve pending incidents in
nine cases;27 and on another judge, who had “end stage renal disease secondary
to nephrosclerosis” and died barely a year after his retirement, for his failure to
decide several criminal and civil cases submitted for decision or resolution and
to act on the pending incidents in over a hundred criminal and civil cases
assigned to the two branches he was presiding.28
The Court also variably set the fines at more than the maximum amount,
usually when the judge’s undue delay was coupled with other offenses. The
judge, in one case, was fined P25,000.00 for undue delay in rendering a ruling
and for making a grossly and patently erroneous decision.29The judge, in
another case, was penalized with a fine of P40,000.00 for deciding a case only
after an undue delay of one year and six months, as well as for simple
misconduct and gross ignorance of the law, considering that the undue delay
was already the judge’s second offense.30  The Court again imposed a fine
of P40,000.00 upon a judge who failed to resolve one motion, bearing in mind
that he was twice previously penalized for violating the Code of Judicial
Conduct and for Gross Ignorance of Procedural Law and Unreasonable Delay.31
The OCA recommended that Judge Andoy be fined P70,000.00 for leaving
139 cases undecided or unresolved

_______________

27 Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, Branch 46,
then Presided by Judge Emma C. Labayen, retired, 442 Phil. 1, 6-7; 393 SCRA 519, 523 (2002).
28 Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Quizon, 427 Phil. 63, 81; 376 SCRA 579, 595
(2002).
29 Vda. de Danao v. Ginete, 443 Phil. 657, 669; 395 SCRA 542, 552 (2003).
30 Adriano v. Villanueva, 445 Phil. 675, 688; 397 SCRA 627, 639 (2003).
31 Unitrust Development Bank v. Caoibes, Jr., 456 Phil. 676, 686; 409 SCRA 394, 402 (2003).

306

306 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Re: Cases Submitted for Decision before Hon. Teresito
A. Andoy, former Judge, Municipial Trial Court,
Cainta, Rizal

within the reglementary period. While the Court agrees that the total number
of cases which Judge Andoy failed to timely decide, act on, or archive, merits a
fine higher than that prescribed by the rules, it deems that a fine
of  P40,000.00  is already sufficient penalty given Judge Andoy’s 21 years of
continuous service in the judiciary, his avowed dire need of funds, and his
expressed willingness to abide by whatever penalty the Court may impose upon
him.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds JUDGE TERESITO A. ANDOY, former
judge of the Municipal Trial Court of Cainta, Rizal, GUILTY of gross
inefficiency, for which he is  FINED  in the amount of  P40,000.00, to be
deducted from his benefits withheld by the Fiscal Management Office, Office of
the Court Administrator.
SO ORDERED.

Puno (C.J.), Carpio, Corona, Carpio-Morales, Velasco, Jr., Nachura, Brion,

Peralta, Bersamin, Del Castillo, Abad, Villarama, Jr., Perez  and  Mendoza,
JJ., concur.

Judge Teresito A. Andoy meted with P40,000.00 fine for gross inefficiency.

 
www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017148d7bd0aed0601a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 5/6
4/4/2020 CentralBooks:Reader

Note.—The Constitution requires trial judges to dispose of all cases or

matters within three months; the failure of judges to render judgments within
the required period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition
of administrative sanction. (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Doyon, 571
SCRA 496 [2008])
——o0o—— 

© Copyright 2020 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/0000017148d7bd0aed0601a2003600fb002c009e/t/?o=False 6/6