AM RTJ 06 2022; (June, 2007) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-06-2022, June 27, 2007
Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Reynaldo M. Alon, RTC, Branch 40, Silay City
FACTS
The Supreme Court, in a July 1, 2002 Resolution, referred an administrative complaint against a sheriff to respondent Judge Reynaldo M. Alon for investigation, report, and recommendation within 60 days. Judge Alon submitted his report only on May 13, 2005, a delay of nearly three years. The Court required him to explain this unreasonable delay. In his compliance, Judge Alon cited several reasons: he did not give the case much thought; he was replaced and later re-appointed as executive judge; he had duties as a judge-designate in another city; the complainant requested a hold pending an affidavit of retraction; and the original records were misplaced in a common office space shared by two court branches.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Alon is administratively liable for the undue delay in submitting his investigation report and for the loss of the case records.
RULING
Yes, Judge Alon is guilty of Gross Negligence and violation of a Supreme Court Rule and directive. The Court found his explanations unacceptable. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to dispose of court business promptly. The Court emphasized that delay diminishes public faith in the judiciary, and judges must seek extensions if they cannot meet deadlines. Judge Alon admitted he failed to submit a partial status report and never requested an extension. His claim that the investigation was held abeyance due to a pending affidavit of retraction is untenable, as affidavits of desistance do not divest the Court of its disciplinary authority or justify inaction.
Regarding the lost records, the Court held that a judge is expected to keep proper records and devise an efficient filing system. Proper court management is the judge’s direct responsibility. The loss of records, save for fortuitous events, is inexcusable. Judge Alon’s failure to safeguard the records and his nearly three-year delay constituted gross negligence. Considering it was his first offense and his 31 years of service, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning.