G.R. No. MTJ-98-1160. November 22, 2000.
Dr. Ma. Cristina B. Seares, complainant, vs. Hon. Rosita B. Salazar, Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Bangued, Abra, respondent.

FACTS

Dr. Ma. Cristina B. Seares filed a sworn complaint against Judge Rosita B. Salazar for ignorance of the law and dereliction of duty. The complainant was the private offended party in Criminal Cases Nos. 5760 to 5763 for Violation of Batas Pambansa Blg. 22. These cases were submitted for decision on February 14, 1996. As of November 13, 1996, no decision had been rendered, clearly exceeding the 90-day constitutional period for deciding cases. Furthermore, the respondent judge disregarded a directive from the Office of the Court Administrator to decide the cases promptly. In a subsequent complaint, Dr. Seares also questioned the judge’s propriety in setting a new hearing for the cases in December 1996 to receive evidence, despite their prior submission for decision.
In her Comment, Judge Salazar did not deny the failure to decide within the period. She explained that the parties were personally known to her and that an amicable settlement was being explored. She averred that the complainant had accepted a partial payment of P150,000 from the accused and later demanded an additional P50,000 for settlement. The judge claimed she was instructed by a court official to set the cases for hearing and that the complainant attempted to influence her to convict the accused.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Rosita B. Salazar is administratively liable for her failure to decide the criminal cases within the mandatory 90-day period.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court agreed with the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator. The constitutional mandate under Section 15, Article VIII, and the Code of Judicial Conduct require judges to decide cases within 90 days from submission. This rule is mandatory. The respondent judge admitted the lapse of the period and offered no satisfactory, legally acceptable explanation for her non-compliance. Her claim of a pending amicable settlement is not a valid justification. The Court emphasized that criminal cases for violation of B.P. 22 are not subject to amicable settlement, as the offense is a crime against the state, and the payment of the civil liability does not extinguish the criminal action. The judge’s duty was to decide the case based on the evidence already submitted. Her failure to do so constituted gross inefficiency and ignorance of this fundamental legal principle, violating the parties’ constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their cases. The Court found her guilty of gross ignorance of the law and dereliction of duty. Accordingly, she was fined One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same offense would be dealt with more severely.