From the Supreme Court


In your editorial of 25 October 2013 entitled A hypocritical Supreme Court decision, you noted that the Court fined Judge Santiago Soriano P40,000 for unreasonable delay in deciding cases. The Court decided Judge Soriano’s case on 11 September 2013. You stated, “The offense was committed in 2006, and that’s what bothers us.” Then you asked, “Who will fine the Supreme Court” for the delay in deciding Judge Soriano’s case?

As stated in the decision, Judge Soriano submitted his report on his undecided cases only after 21 July 2010. After Judge Soriano submitted his report, the Office of the Court Administrator verified the status of the undecided cases. The Office of the Court Administrator submitted its memorandum recommending the imposition of a fine on Judge Soriano on 3 January 2013. Under the Constitution, the Court had two years from 3 January 2013 to decide the case. The Court rendered its decision on 11 September 2013, well within the two-year constitutional deadline.

In short, the Court was not in delay in deciding Judge Soriano’s case. In case you are wondering if the ponente, Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, has any backlog in his cases, please be informed that Justice Carpio has a zero backlog: there is no case undecided for two years or more from the date of submission for decision.

Thank you.

Judicial Staff Head
Office of the Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio


Please follow our commenting guidelines.

1 Comment

  1. Atty. MARIA TERESA B. SIBULO, did you background check retired Judge Soriano, before his retirement while he was the Municipal Judge of Naguilian, La Union and the capital city of San Fernando ?

    The reason why he failed to render the subject decisions was, he had “ABS” barkadas witbin his jurisdictions.” ALAK BABAE SUGAL, in short. You may ask the people in said places and they will confirm this claim. The Supreme Court Administrator should be more vigilant. The IBP of La Union must perform its role too.