G.R. No. RTJ-93-1064, January 22, 1996
Emilia B. Hernandez, Complainant, vs. Judge Salvador P. de Guzman, Regional Trial Court, Branch 142, Makati City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emilia B. Hernandez charged respondent Judge Salvador P. de Guzman with bias and undue delay in the disposition of Criminal Case No. 89-1198 for illegal recruitment. Hernandez was the private complainant in the case. She alleged that the judge deliberately prolonged the trial through repeated resettings over four years. Furthermore, she contended that the indemnity of P5,000.00 awarded to her in the judgment of conviction was unjustly low, indicative of judicial bias against her.
In his defense, respondent Judge argued that the delays were attributable to Hernandez herself, as she was granted multiple postponements to present her witnesses. He also stated that after the case was submitted for decision on May 28, 1992, the promulgation was delayed because Hernandez frequently visited the court, assuring staff that her witnesses would testify if the case were reopened. Regarding the indemnity, he justified the P5,000.00 award based on Hernandez’s own testimony and a prior POEA order showing her actual damages were only P3,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for undue delay in the trial and decision of the criminal case and for alleged bias in the award of indemnity.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable for undue delay. The Court found the charge of delay meritorious. While the judge attributed the initial trial delays to the complainant’s requests for postponements, he failed to exercise the requisite control over his court proceedings. Judicial circulars mandate a strict policy against improvident postponements to prevent unnecessary delays. More significantly, the case was submitted for decision on May 28, 1992, making the deadline August 1992. The decision was dated February 23, 1993, constituting a six-month delay. The judge’s reason for the delay—relying on hearsay that the complainant wanted to reopen the case—was flimsy and unacceptable, especially since he had already reached a verdict of conviction without needing the additional witnesses.
However, the charge of bias regarding the P5,000.00 indemnity is not an administrative matter. The determination of damages is a judicial function. A perceived error in the assessment of indemnity, being judicial in nature, should be questioned through appropriate judicial remedies like an appeal, not an administrative complaint. The judge’s explanation for the award was based on evidence on record. Therefore, only the delay incurred administrative sanction. The Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on respondent Judge for the delay, with a stern warning against repetition.