It’s about time: Clogged dockets and judicial delay (Part IV)

This is the last of a four-part series, although given the importance of the topic, it should continue to be debated and discussed in the days to come. More than “erroneous” court decisions, I dare say that more problematic are “delayed” decisions: at least the former can be appealed, subjected to media and academic scrutiny, or brought to the higher court of public opinion. The latter, on the other hand, entails languishing and agonizing waiting — a proverbial Damocles sword that causes prolonged anxiety to party litigants or results in economic dislocation by needlessly tying assets in litigation.

Consider the observation of former Chief Justice Fred Ruiz Castro that judicial remedies have been subjected to “over-use, misuse, and abuse.” Indeed, the power to bring a grievance to court and seek redress is a privilege that must be resorted to responsibly, i.e. used, but not abused. Alas, this hasn’t always been the case.

Instead, we have unfortunate instances such as the case of Philippine Airlines v. Court of Appeals, wherein a simple dispute over a damaged microwave oven extended into a six-year legal battle. In reflecting upon the dubious wisdom of litigating a “trivial pursuit,” Justice Florenz Regalado, said: “We will never know exactly how many man-hours went into the preparation, litigation and adjudication of this simple dispute over an oven, which the parties will no doubt insist they contested as a matter of principle. One thing, however, is certain. As long as the first letter in ‘principle’ is somehow outplaced by the peso sign, the courts will always have to resolve similar controversies although mutual goodwill could have dispensed with judicial recourse.”

For his part, Pangasinan RTC Judge Ulysses Butuyan laments the “confusing and misleading facts, warped testimonies, grammatically incorrect sworn statements, and sycophantic counsel attempting to curry favor for their cause which, when considered as a whole, pose a real threat of delay to what may be an otherwise straightforward case”.

In light of our litigious proclivities — and the other sources of delay in “practice,” owing to intentional dilatory tactics, lack of judges, unavailability of witnesses, the “necessity” of other parties, and the fact that court calendars simply cannot accommodate more frequent settings — perhaps we should also take a second look at paragraph (2) of Section 15, Article VIII of our Constitution which states that “a case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself” as it is through this provision that delay festers and finds refuge. The key word here is “submitted.” Hence, all one needs do to subvert the ends of justice would be to procrastinate the filing of every pleading, brief, or memoranda — after all, without which, the case could not be deemed “submitted”. Perhaps the better option would be to employ a “finished or not finished, pass your paper” mentality such that after filing a case in court, all pleadings, briefs, and memoranda are given a definite deadline for their submission. After that, well, as they say in school, “pencils down, papers forward.” In this respect, the Supreme Court itself should set the example.

In addition to delay-busting ideas previously discussed, two ideas might be worth considering. First, it must be pointed out that the “right to appeal” is a statutory right. In other words, that a party can take his or her cause further up to a particular court is only because that remedy is granted by law. It is for this reason that a case involving a microwave oven can find its way to the highest court of the land. But, the truth is, this does not have to be so. Quite frankly, there should be a reasonable and rational threshold that screens out matters that can be appealed to certain courts (most especially the “Supreme” Court). In this regard, the arguably superfluous “grave abuse” of power provided under the 1987 Constitution should be constitutionally reviewed as it has not only been a source of delay but abuse as well.

Perhaps, we can also adopt the case selection process of the US Supreme Court (although this would also necessitate a Constitutional amendment). In most situations, the latter has discretion whether or not to accept a petition filed before it on appeal. They do this by holding a “conference,” a private meeting of the nine Justices by themselves to determine if the petition is founded upon “compelling reasons” (based upon Rule 10 of their Rules of Court) to warrant the Court’s intervention. In this way, the Court manages to handle and reduce the over 7,000 petitions filed with it each year down to roughly 100 or less.

Second, to my understanding there have been efforts to introduce a system for the electronic filing of pleadings. Apart from the obvious advantage of speed and ease, this has potential to cut out the delay that some lawyers occasion by filing — at the very last minute — via registered mail. (And, of course, this would, hopefully, make us more environmentally conscious: no more filing of multiple hard copies of voluminous documents.)

Although this issue of clogged dockets will, in all practicality, be around for some time, the fact remains that the institutions are in place and the tools in hand to deal with this issue efficiently. All that is needed perhaps is a shift in mental attitude from dilatory tactics postponing the inevitable to more of a “pass your paper” mentality on the part of our magistrates and advocates which admits of no excuses, begging, or unjustified pleading. When time is up, time’s up and the cases should be decided upon with all due haste, save for extremely meritorious exceptions wherein the greater interest of justice would be compromised by a premature disposition. After all, it should be always remembered that boni judicis lites dirimere est — it is the duty of a good judge to prevent litigation. –Dean Andy Bautista (The Philippine Star)

Email: deanbautista@yahoo.com