A.M. No. RTJ-99-1469. October 2, 2000. JULIUS N. RABOCA, complainant, vs. JUDGE ALEJANDRO M. VELEZ, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan de Oro City, Branch 20, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Julius N. Raboca, counsel for plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 91-246 for quieting of title, charged respondent Judge Alejandro M. Velez with gross inefficiency and serious misconduct. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s failure to resolve a Motion for Summary Judgment filed on March 2, 1992, and a Supplemental Motion filed on March 20, 1992, for over five years. Subsequent motions for resolution filed in 1995 and 1996 were likewise ignored. Raboca contended this delay constituted gross inefficiency and that the judge’s monthly certificates of service, attesting that all matters had been resolved within the 90-day period, were necessarily falsified.
In his defense, Judge Velez denied malice, attributing the delay to his official travel abroad in mid-1992 and severe health problems, including a heart attack in August 1993 and a heart bypass surgery in late 1995. He argued the delay was more prejudicial to the defendant, who had a pending Motion to Dismiss, and claimed the complainant contributed to the delay by not actively prosecuting the case. He also noted a similar complaint against him before the Office of the Ombudsman had been dismissed.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Alejandro M. Velez is administratively liable for gross inefficiency and serious misconduct due to his failure to resolve pending motions within the reglementary period and for submitting falsified certificates of service.

RULING

Yes, the Supreme Court found Judge Velez guilty of both charges. On gross inefficiency, the Court emphasized the constitutional mandate that lower courts must decide cases or resolve incidents within three months. A motion for summary judgment is precisely intended for the prompt disposition of actions where no genuine issue exists. The judge’s failure to act on the motions for over five years, without securing an extension from the Court, constituted gross inefficiency in violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. His excuses of travel and illness were unavailing; his health issues arose over a year after the motions were filed, and he should have requested an extension or considered voluntary retirement if unfit for duty.
On serious misconduct, the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator that the judge’s monthly certificates of service, which did not disclose these long-pending incidents, were falsified. This act of dishonesty undermined judicial integrity. While considering his compulsory retirement and poor health, the Court deemed the OCA’s recommended fine of P1,000.00 insufficient. Instead, a fine of P5,000.00, deductible from his retirement benefits, was imposed as a reasonable penalty for the combined infractions of gross inefficiency and serious misconduct.