ChanRobles Virtual law Library
|
GO TO FULL LIST OF LATEST DECISIONS and RESOLUTIONS
DANTE
J. PEREZ,
A.M. No. RTJ-96-1367 February 6, 1998 -versus-JUDGE GUILLERMO R. ANDAYA, Respondent.chanrobles virtual law library ROMERO, J :
For the Court's resolution
is a Letter-Complaint originally filed by Dante J. Perez on December 6,
1995, against respondent Judge Guillermo R. Andaya in connection with
Civil
Case No. 91-126 [Community Development Corporation v. Asian Bank] for
the
allegedly unreasonable delay in the disposition of the case. CC No.
91-126,
a complaint for the collection of a sum of money, was filed on December
21, 1991, and was raffled to Branch 53 of the Regional Trial Court of
Lucena
City [Lucena RTC] presided by Judge Andaya. By resolution dated March
20,
1996, Judge Andaya was required to file his comment to the complaint.
"Respondent Judge had to unreasonably await action until December 7, 1995, or a span of four (4) years, for plaintiff's delayed reaction to file Motion to Admit Amended Complaint which precipitated defendant's filing of a new supplemental motion to dismiss on February 16, 1996. What was worse, respondent Judge withheld resolution through inaction on the two pending pleadings due to (the) instant administrative complaint earlier filed against him on December 6, 1995(,) which, according to his answer, 'it (was) the better part of discretion to defer action on the motions until such time plaintiff Perez may signify whether it (sic) desires the undersigned to continue acting on the case and/or wait for the advice of the Honorable Supreme Court on the matter.' This is something deplorable. Respondent judge is telling us that he has "never the intention to delay the proceedings in plaintiff's case" but precisely the subject matter of the complaint is the long delay for four (4) years without even the availment of the benefit of a pre-trial hearing per the vehement protestation of complainant Perez. "Members of the judiciary must always strive to live up to their responsibility of assisting parties litigants in obtaining just speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases and proceedings as directed in Rule 1, Sec. 2 of the Rules of Court. Judges should avoid delays or if it cannot be totally avoided, at least to hold them to the minimum and repudiate dilatory tactics. Delay is always a recurring complaint of litigants. Precisely, again, judges are reminded strict observance of the provisions prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15, of the Constitution in matter(s) of adjudication and resolution of cases submitted in relation to compliance of matters involving expeditious disposition of cases to minimize delays in the processing of cases in the trial courts. "Respondent judge's argument that on September 29, 1993(,) he was designated acting presiding judge of (the) RTC(,) Branch 54(,) in Lucena City and has been carrying (the) heavy case load of two salas, and lately designated to hear heinous crimes(,) should not be made as basis for excuses at this point in time when the judiciary is under siege upon which the judge should give complete and dedicated support of his primary and fundamental task to restore full confidence of our people in the courts. "Premises considered, it is hereby recommended that respondent judge, despite desistance of complainant to pursue his administrative complaint, should be ordered reprimanded for neglect of duty, with a warning that repetition of similar acts and other administrative lapses will be dealt with more severely." The Court sees no plausible reason why this recommendation should not be honored. ACCORDINGLY, the Court resolved to reprimand respondent Judge Guillermo R. Andaya for neglect of duty with the warning that a repetition of similar acts will be dealt with more severely. Narvasa, C.J., Kapunan and Francisco, JJ ., concur. Purisima, J, took no part in the deliberations. |
|