OCA v. JUDGE AVENTURADO

THE OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR vs JUDGE JUSTINO G. AVENTURADO

A.M. No. RTJ-09-2212 (Formerly A.M. No. 09-11-446-RTC)

April 18, 2017

Facts:

Judge Justino G. Aventurado, is a presiding Judge of Branch 1 and Branch 2 of the Regional Trial Court in Tagum, Davao del Norte, and on Branch 5 of the Regional Trial Court in Mati, Davao Oriental. He filed for his resignation and in view thereof, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted separate judicial audits on the above mention courts. On November 6, 2009, the OCA submitted a consolidated report on the judicial audits to Chief Justice Reynato S. Puno.

Accordingly, on December 16, 2009, the Court resolved to docket the consolidated report as an administrative complaint against respondent Judge for: ( 1) gross irregularity and serious misconduct, and gross inefficiency and incompetence for failure to decide the 12 cases that were the subjects of his requests for extension of time to resolve; and (2) gross violation of Administrative Circular No. 43-2004 dated September 6, 2004 (Adopting New Guidelines on the Filing of Applications for Optional Retirement) for continuing to function as a judge beyond the stated effectivity period of his optional retirement.

On April 9, 2010, respondent Judge wrote to the Members of the First Division of the Court in an attempt to get their sympathy.3 Under the resolution promulgated on September 6, 2010,the Court treated this communication as his comment on the administrative complaint, and referred the entire matter to the OCA for evaluation, report and recommendation.

The Office of the Court Administrator rendered its decision finding the judge for gross irregularity and serious misconduct, and gross inefficiency and incompetence for failure to decide the 12 cases that were the subjects of his requests for extension of time to resolve and gross violation of Administrative Circular No. 43-2004 dated September 6, 2004 (Adopting New Guidelines on the Filing of Applications for Optional Retirement) for continuing to function as a judge beyond the stated effectivity period of his optional retirement.

Issue:

1. Whether or not the respondent Judge was guilty of gross irregularity and serious misconduct, and gross inefficiency and incompetence for failure to decide the 12 cases that were the subjects of his requests for extension of time to resolve

2. Whether or not the respondent Judge was also guilty of gross violation of Administrative Circular No. 43-2004 dated September 6, 2004 (Adopting New Guidelines on the Filing of Applications for Optional Retirement) for continuing to function as a judge beyond the stated effectivity period of his optional retirement.

Held:

1. Yes. The respondent judge knew that Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution mandated that cases or matters filed in the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the time they are submitted for decision or resolution. He was further aware of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct by which he was expressly required as a judge to promptly dispose of court business, and to decide cases within the prescribed periods. Prescribed periods efficiently constituted gross inefficiency and warranted the imposition of the condign administrative sanction on him.

2. Yes. Administrative Circular No. 43-2004 required, among others, that the judge applying for optional retirement should already cease working and discharging his functions as judge even "[i]f on the date specified in the application as the date of the effectivity of the [optional] retirement, [he] has not yet received any notice of approval or denial of his application." In his case, respondent Judge signified the effectivity of his optional retirement to be January 30, 2009, although he subsequently requested an extension until February 20, 2009 to enable him to promulgate decisions he had supposedly prepared in the last week of January 2009.