Mitigating excuse

Under the rules, a judge has 90 days upon admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination of the trial, or 90 days upon the filing of the last memorandum if he requires the parties to submit memorandum, or 90 days upon expiration of the period to do so without any memorandum being filed, or 90 days upon completion of the transcripts if the case was previously heard by another judge, within which to decide a case. Failure to decide within that period renders him administratively liable. Is there an excuse that may mitigate his liability? This is answered in this case of a Metropolitan Trial Court Judge (the Judge).

One of the 1,605 cases inherited by the Judge from two predecessors was a civil case which has been pending for eight years. The Judge started handling the case on November 18, 2005 but only for the last five hearings and with incomplete Transcripts of Stenographic Notes (TSNs) because the stenographers who had taken them had transferred to another court.

On August 5, 2008, the plaintiff in said case filed an ex-parte manifestation praying for its submission for decision for failure of defendant to file their memorandum. Despite the lapse of three months or 90 days, the Judge had not rendered a decision. Then on December 12, 2008, the plaintiff filed another motion to resolve. But there was still no decision from the Judge. Again on February 12, 2009, plaintiff filed another motion to resolve, but the Judge also failed to decide although he issued an order dated March 15, 2009 directing the stenographers to submit the TSNs. He finally decided only on June 2, 2009 which was way beyond the period.

Hence an official of the plaintiff corporation filed an administrative complaint against the Judge for delay in rendering a decision, gross inefficiency and conduct unbecoming of a judge relative to his handling of the case.

In reply the Judge said that the charges against him was unfair as the case was only one of the 1,605 cases he inherited from his two predecessors and the TSNs were not yet complete because the stenographers who took them transferred to another court. He stressed that he was also conducting daily hearings because his sala was also designated as a Special Court for Tax Cases, Election Court and Small Claims Court. Was the Judge administratively liable?

Yes. The judge really failed in his duty to promptly and expeditiously dispose of the said case. In so failing, he ran afoul of the Rules (Administrative Circular 28 dated July 3, 1989).

He should have forthwith issued the order directing the stenographers to submit the TSNs after plaintiff had manifested that defendants had not filed their memorandum. Yet he did not, but instead took more than seven months before issuing such order.

Additional court assignments or designations imposed upon the Judge did not make him less liable for the delay. A judge cannot by himself choose to prolong the period for deciding cases beyond the period authorized by law. Had his additional assignments or designations unduly prevented him from deciding the case, he could have easily sought additional time by requesting for an extension from the SC through the OCA. Without such order of extension, his failure to decide constitutes gross inefficiency.

Nevertheless considering that he inherited 1,605 case upon his assumption on August 10, 2005 and that the omission complained of is the first and only administrative charge against him, his liability is mitigated and he should be reprimanded only with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely (Olaguer vs. Ampuan, A.M. MTJ-10-1769, October 6, 2010)

* * *

E-mail:  [email protected]