AM MTJ 90 439; (March, 1991) (Digest)
G.R. No. MTJ-90-439; March 20, 1991
Ruben Balagot, petitioner, vs. Judge Emilio Opinion, Municipal Trial Court, Branch 56, Malabon, Metro Manila, respondent.
FACTS
Ruben Balagot filed a sworn complaint against Judge Emilio Opinion for the inordinate delay in resolving Criminal Case No. 1138-85. The case was submitted for decision on July 23, 1986, but the judgment was rendered only on February 1, 1990—a delay of over three years and eight months. The complainant attributed this to frequent postponements during the trial stage. During the investigation by the Executive Judge, Balagot withdrew his complaint, finding the respondent’s explanation meritorious.
Respondent Judge did not deny the delay. He attributed it to two primary factors: the failure of his stenographer to transcribe the notes despite repeated memoranda, and his overload from being designated as Acting Judge of another branch from May 1987 to June 1988, which he claimed caused him to forget to follow up on the case. He presented documentary evidence showing that trial postponements were due to motions by the litigants.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for the delay in rendering judgment beyond the constitutional and statutory 90-day period.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of neglect of duty. The Court emphasized that the withdrawal of the complaint is immaterial, as the delay is a matter of public interest and not dependent on the complainant’s desistance. The reasons proffered by the judge do not constitute a valid defense. The designation as Acting Judge in another branch began seven months after the decision was already overdue on October 21, 1986, and thus cannot excuse the initial and subsequent delay.
Crucially, the Court ruled that a delay in the transcription of stenographic notes is not a justification. Judges are mandated to take notes of salient hearing points and to prepare decisions without awaiting the full transcript. The 90-day reglementary period for deciding cases is mandatory and must be strictly adhered to, with or without the transcribed notes. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) on respondent Judge for violating this duty.