Penalizing undue delay

People frustrated with their cases crawling along in the courts should consider filing a complaint before the Judicial Integrity Board.

Among the biggest problems in this country is the glacial pace of justice. The problem has fueled insurgencies as well as bolstered public support for the likes of Rodrigo Duterte and his extrajudicial short cuts in law enforcement.

Slow justice persists despite the existence of Republic Act 8493, with the self-explanatory title “Speedy Trial Act,” passed way back in February 1998. Many Pinoys must be scratching their heads in disbelief that we actually have such a law.

A reasonably speedy trial is also a requirement enshrined in the Constitution itself.

Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution covers the judicial department. Section 15 (1) of the article states: “All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.”

Who knew? Of course the Supreme Court does. The SC cited this constitutional provision in upholding a recommendation of the Judicial Integrity Board, which found a regional trial court (RTC) judge guilty of gross neglect of duty for taking seven years to resolve a petition for an injunction.

Judge Miguel Asuncion of the Antipolo City RTC Branch 99 was fined P201,000 for unjustified or “undue delay” in resolving the petition for damages and an injunction filed by stallholders who were forcibly evicted from the New Cubao Central Market in Cainta, Rizal by Princeville Construction and Development Corp.

*      *      *

According to a press statement from the SC, the petition was filed and deemed submitted for resolution in April 2016. In 2021, with the case still unresolved, the stallholders filed a complaint against Asuncion for gross inefficiency. While this complaint was pending, Asuncion finally issued a ruling on April 11, 2023, rejecting the petition for an injunction.

Asuncion explained that the plaintiffs submitted several motions related to the case until Dec. 7, 2018. He cited the challenges posed by the COVID pandemic to court proceedings, and explained that he had many other matters to attend to, including applications for bail and search warrants. His court also got an additional designation as a Special Commercial Court and Cybercrime Court.

The SC, however, noted that the additional pleadings were all consistent with the original petition for a writ of preliminary injunction, and simply wanted Asuncion to rule on the case because the plaintiffs’ livelihoods were at stake. The SC stressed that a petition for such a writ “must be treated with urgency.”

The petition should have been resolved within three months from the submission of the plaintiffs’ last memorandum on Dec. 7, 2018, which was long before COVID hit the country, the SC said.

In its press release dated Nov. 5, the SC cited the Constitution in penalizing Asuncion, explaining: “…cases in lower courts must be resolved within three months from the filing of the last pleading required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.”

The SC added: “Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct also required judges to promptly rule on pending cases. This is complemented by Office of the Court Administrator Circular No. 243-2022, which directs judges to strictly observe the prescribed period to decide cases. Failure to do so is a ground for administrative liability, except for valid reasons.”

“Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering an order is considered neglect of duty,” the SC declared, adding that it deemed “inexcusable” Asuncion’s seven-year delay in resolving a petition for an injunction.

*      *      *

In recent years, undue or “inordinate” delay in adjudication has been cited as the principal ground for the dismissal of a growing string of cases involving large-scale corruption.

The cases include several plunder complaints related to the pork barrel scam, plus graft and asset forfeiture cases related to the billions in ill-gotten wealth of the Marcoses.

Delays are also wreaking havoc on the electoral process. The latest example is Carmen Rosal, who will be officially replaced today by Alfredo Garbin Jr. as mayor of Legazpi City in Albay, just six months before the next elections.

Garbin, a former Ako Bicol party-list congressman, placed second to Rosal in the 2022 general elections. But the Commission on Elections found Rosal guilty of violating the Omnibus Election Code for releasing government funds – cash aid to tricycle drivers – during the prohibited period in the campaign. The Supreme Court affirmed the Comelec’s decision to disqualify Rosal last Oct. 22.

Such belated installation of officials in elective posts is not uncommon in our country. It’s tantamount to undue delay in the resolution of electoral protests, whether by the Comelec or the electoral tribunals. Some candidates have been declared as the true winners just weeks before the next elections. It rewards poll fraud, robs winners of their mandate and undermines the voters’ will.

Perhaps Asuncion raised a valid point that the SC must also confront – that the judiciary is understaffed and judges are overwhelmed by the sheer volume of their workload. A similar problem hounds the Comelec.

The SC, in the press statement on Asuncion, acknowledged the problem, but with a caveat: “While the Court understands the challenges judges face in fulfilling their responsibilities, it will not hesitate to hold them accountable if they neglect their duties without a valid reason.”

Asuncion was penalized because he faced a formal complaint. If other unhappy plaintiffs follow suit, the SC should prepare to be swamped.

Beyond fines, the SC should consider raising the penalty for undue delay in judicial adjudication. Surely violating a constitutional mandate deserves heavier penalties.