SC reprimands Pasay City judge

The Supreme Court has reprimanded a Pasay City Regional Trial Court judge for sitting on a case pending in his sala for more than the required period of time.

In a seven-page resolution penned by Associate Justice Alicia Austria-Martinez, the SC’s Third Division found Judge Jesus Mupas of the Pasay City RTC Branch 112 guilty of violating Rule 3.05 (Adjudicative Responsibilities) of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to promptly dispose cases lodged in their courtrooms.

The SC also ordered Mupas to pay a fine of P10,000.

“Judges must therefore perform their official duties with utmost competence and diligence, and they should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to promptly administer justice. Judges must cultivate a capacity for quick decision, and must not delay the judgment, which a party justly deserves. For truly, inability to decide a case within the required period is inexcusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, which warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate,” the Court said.

The Court said Mupas cannot argue that he was delayed in deciding on the cases because he was given additional assignments.

Mupas is also in charge of Pasay City RTC Branch 117 which he said, is also receiving the same number of cases as Branch 112.

The Court also reminded Mupas that the Constitution orders lower courts to dispose of cases promptly and decide them within three months from the filing of the last pleading.

“The fact that respondent had additional assignments will not exonerate him from liability, because he was not precluded from asking for extension of time to resolve a pending matter,” the Court said.

 “The public’s faith and confidence in the judiciary depends, to a large extent, on the judicious and prompt disposition of cases and matters pending before the courts. Any delay diminishes the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary,” the SC said.

Mupas was reprimanded by the Court after it found merit in the complaint filed by Nilo Jay Mina before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA).

Mina had accused Mupas of dereliction of duties, grave misconduct, manifest partiality, violation of the Constitution and violation of Republic Act 3019 or the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act.

Mina had filed a case for damages against Pasay City Judge Bibiano Colasito, Assistant Prosecutor Eva Portugal Atienza and Ferdinand Cruz before Mupas’ sala.

Mina said Mupas had allegedly failed to resolve within  the required period, his motion to declare all defendants in default.

According to the Court, the motion was received by the court on May 12, 2006. Seven months later, Mina filed the complaint against Mupas with the original motion still undecided.

Mupas in his defense, argued that he had already resolved Mina’s motion, as well as two other motions to dismiss the case filed by two of the defendants in December 2006.

Mupas added that the motions were resolved way beyond the required period. He added that Mina should have instead filed a motion to resolve before his court.

In a report to the Court, the Office of the Court Administrator found Mupas liable of violating the rule to dispose of the court’s business promptly.

The Court then affirmed the OCA’s report and stressed that the Code of Judicial Conduct recognizes “the right of every person to the speedy disposition of their cases.”