THIRD DIVISION
EVANGELINA C.
SAMSON,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
RTJ-02-1710
June 17, 2003 -versus-
JUDGE JULES A. MEJIA,
Respondent.
D E C I S I
O N
SANDOVAL-GUTIERREZ,
J.:
The instant administrative
case stemmed from the Affidavit-Complaint[1]
for gross misconduct dated September 18, 2001 filed by Evangelina C.
Samson
against Judge Jules Mejia of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54,
Alaminos,
Pangasinan.
Complainant alleged
that she is the defendant in Civil Case No. A-2274, entitled "Dorothy
M.
Cabal, et al. vs. Dominador Cabal and Evangeline C. Samson" for
annulment
of contracts, pending before respondent’s court. On April 26,
2000,
the case was deemed submitted for decision. Four months passed
and
still, respondent had not rendered his decision, prompting her to file
three motions for resolution dated August 18, 2000, November 3, 2000
and
January 9, 2001.chanrobles virtual law library
Three months later,
complainant, dismayed by respondent’s inaction, went to his office and
pleaded for the early disposition of the case. However,
respondent
ignored her plea and even suggested that she settle the case amicably
with
the plaintiffs. This convinced complainant that respondent
purposely
withheld his decision in the subject case to pressure her to enter into
a compromise agreement with the plaintiffs.cralaw:red
In his comment, respondent
admitted there was delay but it was not intentionally done to favor any
of the parties. He explained that on July 10, 2000, he
issued
an order regarding the admissibility of the evidence in Civil Case No.
A-2274. He also waited, in the interest of justice and
equity,
for the comment of the intervenor after he ordered that the
intervention
be expunged from the records of the case. Hence, the case was
considered
submitted for decision only in September 2000.chanrobles virtual law library
He also explained that
he was then suffering from the untimely demise of his daughter.
Moreover,
he was an acting presiding judge in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 69
at Iba, Zambales. Furthermore, on March 12, 2001, he
received
a letter from Dorothy Cabal, one of the plaintiffs in the same civil
case,
requesting that she be furnished with the necessary forms she had to
accomplish,
being the sole heir of Mario Cabal, also a plaintiff in the case.
Respondent prayed that the Court consider his explanation satisfactory.cralaw:red
After evaluating the
records, the Office of the Court Administrator found merit in the
complaint
and recommended that:
(1) The
case
be re-docketed as a regular administrative complaint; and
(2) Respondent
Judge
be held liable for gross inefficiency and be ordered to pay a fine of
five
thousand pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of
the
same act will be dealt with more severely.
Pursuant to the
Resolution
of this Court dated July 15, 2002, both parties filed their respective
Manifestations that they are submitting this case for decision based on
the pleadings filed.chanrobles virtual law library
Article VIII, Section
15 (2) of the Constitution requires judges of lower courts to decide
cases
or resolve matters within three months from the date they are submitted
for decision or resolution. Under Administrative Circular
No.
28,[2]
a case is considered submitted for decision "upon the admission of the
evidence of the parties at the termination of the trial.
The
ninety-day period for deciding the case shall commence to run from
submission
of the case for decision without memoranda; in case the court requires
or allows its filing, the case shall be considered submitted for
decision
upon the filing of the last memorandum or upon the expiration of the
period
to do so, whichever is earlier."
In the case at bar,
respondent, on March 29, 2000, ordered the parties to submit their
respective
memoranda within thirty (30) days. Applying Administrative
Circular
No. 28, Civil Case No. A-2274 was deemed submitted for decision on
April
28, 2000. However, records show that respondent rendered his
decision
only on December 11, 2001. Clearly, there is a delay of one year
and more than seven months.chanrobles virtual law library
Respondent’s explanation
obviously lacks merit. Even if we believe respondent’s claim that
the case was submitted for decision in September 2000, still there was
delay.cralaw:red
While we commiserate
with respondent for the untimely death of his daughter, such fact,
while
mitigating,[3]
cannot completely exculpate him from liability. He could have
asked
the Court for an extension of the period within which to decide Civil
Case
No. A-2274 instead of allowing the 90-day period to
expire.
Or, as complainant aptly suggested, he could have gone on leave during
the time of his mourning if he could not effectively discharge his
duties
as a judge. We likewise cannot understand why a letter-request
from
one of the plaintiffs could cause delay. Nor can we accept his
excuse
that his designation as Acting Presiding Judge of another Branch
contributed
to the delay in the disposition of the case.[4]
The Code of Judicial
Conduct mandates judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly and
to decide cases within the required periods.[5]
Failure to do so violates a litigant’s right to speedy disposition of
his
case.[6]
Moreover, delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s
faith
and confidence in the judiciary.[7]
While there is no evidence
that respondent purposely withheld his decision to favor the opposing
party,
his inaction constitutes undue delay in rendering a decision.
This
offense is classified as a less serious charge under Section 9, Rule
140
of the Revised Rules of Court, thus:
"Sec.
9.
Less Serious Charges. - Less serious charges include:chanrobles virtual law library
1.
Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the
records
of a case;
x
x
x
x x
x
x x x."chanrobles virtual law library
Section 11 (B) of the
same
Rule provides the penalty as follows:
"B.
If
the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following
sanctions shall be imposed:
1.
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less
than
one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
chan
robles virtual
2. A
fine
of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00"chanrobles virtual law library
WHEREFORE, this Court
finds
respondent Judge Jules A. Mejia liable for undue delay in rendering a
decision
in Civil Case No. A-2274 and imposes upon him a fine of P11,000.00.
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Panganiban,
Corona, and Carpio-Morales, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 3-4.
[2]
Dated July 3, 1989.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
In Dizon vs. Lopez, (278 SCRA 483 [1997]), this Court considered the
death
of respondent’s parents as a mitigating factor in an administrative
case
against her for failure to decide within the ninety-day period.chanrobles virtual law library
[4]
Concerned Citizen of Maddela vs. Judge Ma. Theresa Dela Torre-Yadao,
A.M.
Nos. RTJ-01-1639 and 00-9-427-RTC, November 27, 2002, citing Echaves
vs.
Fernandez, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1596, February 19, 2002, Gallego vs.
Doronila,
334 SCRA 339, 345 (2000), Re: Report on the Judicial Audit of Cases in
the RTC, Br. 35, Iriga City, 299 SCRA 382 (1998).chanrobles virtual law library
[5]
Canon 3, Rule 3.05; Gil vs. Janolo, AM RTJ-00-1602, December 5, 2000,
347
SCRA 6; Office of the Court Administrator vs. Castillo, AM RTJ-01-1634,
October 25, 2001, 368 SCRA 189.
[6]
Phil. Geriatrics Foundation, Inc. vs. Layosa, AM No. MTJ-00-1249,
September
4, 2001, 364 SCRA 287; Guillas vs. Muñez, AM No. RTJ-00-1571,
August
28, 2001, 363 SCRA 701.
[7]
Yalung vs. Pascua, AM No. MTJ-01-1342, June 21, 2001, 359 SCRA 241,
citing
Request of Judge Irma Zita Masamayon, RTC Br. 52, Talibon, Bohol for
Extension
of Time to Decide Criminal Case No. 96-251, 328 SCRA 584 (2000); Sta.
Ana
vs. Arinday, Jr., 283 SCRA 392 (1997). |