G.R. No. RTJ-96-1339. January 29, 1997.
Manuel T. Pepino vs. Judge Tibing A. Asaali, RTC, Branch 17, Zamboanga City.

FACTS

Complainant Manuel T. Pepino accused respondent Judge Tibing A. Asaali of undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. 3965. The case was submitted for decision in March 1992. After a year passed without a judgment, Pepino filed a motion for resolution in 1993. He filed subsequent motions on October 13, 1994, and March 1, 1995. As of the complaint’s filing on November 24, 1995, no decision had been promulgated, constituting a delay of over three years.
In his comment, Judge Asaali cited multiple additional assignments as the cause for the delay. From March 1992, he served as Acting Judge of RTC Branch 15. On March 1, 1993, he was appointed Executive Judge of the Zamboanga City RTC until June 1995. On September 12, 1994, he was additionally designated presiding judge for branches in Jolo and Parang, Sulu, requiring monthly travel. He argued these heavy duties, which he willingly accepted, prevented him from deciding the case within the 90-day reglementary period and pleaded for compassionate understanding, noting the decision was being finalized.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Tibing A. Asaali is administratively liable for his failure to decide Civil Case No. 3965 within the reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found the prolonged inaction over three years inexcusable. While the Court acknowledged the respondent’s heavy workload from multiple designations, these additional duties do not absolve him from his primary obligation to decide cases within the mandated period. The legal logic is clear: the constitutional and statutory duty to decide cases promptly is paramount and non-negotiable. Judges must manage their caseload efficiently, and if delays are anticipated due to legitimate causes, they must request extensions from the Court.
The respondent’s failure to decide the case for over three years, despite three motions from the complainant urging resolution, and his failure to seek a formal extension, constituted gross inefficiency. This delay caused prejudice to the complainant and undermined public confidence in the judiciary’s ability to deliver timely justice. The Court emphasized that the image of the courts as dispensers of swift justice is severely tarnished by such inaction. Consequently, Judge Asaali was severely reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.