AM RTJ 95 1325; (October, 1995) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-95-1325 October 4, 1995
Pablo Española vs. Judge Vincent Eden C. Panay, RTC, Branch 30, Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
FACTS
Pablo S. Española filed an administrative complaint charging Judge Vincent Eden C. Panay with dereliction of duty for failing to decide Civil Case No. 262 within the reglementary period. Although complainant initially moved to withdraw his petition after the case was decided, he subsequently filed an “Additional Complaint” reiterating the charge and alleging undue delay in three other civil cases: Civil Case No. 147 (submitted August 1988, decided August 1994), Civil Case No. 262 (submitted September 1992, decided July 1994), and Civil Case No. 200 (submitted May 1993, decided August 1994). The complaint also objected to sarcastic remarks made by the judge in his decision attacking complainant’s person and reputation.
In his comment, respondent Judge surmised the complaint was motivated by complainant’s loss in the cases. He explained the delays by citing an alleged agreement to consolidate Cases No. 147 and 200, his heavy caseload due to an uneven distribution of municipalities in his jurisdiction, his additional designations to preside over two other branches for extended periods, and the suspension of his Clerk of Court since 1993. He reported having cleared his docket by late August 1994.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering decisions in the subject civil cases.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Court found his justifications for the delays insufficient. First, regarding Civil Cases No. 147 and 200, even assuming an agreement to consolidate them existed, they were decided separately days apart in August 1994, which did not excuse the six-year delay for Case No. 147 from its 1988 submission. Second, no sound justification was offered for the delay in Civil Case No. 262. Third, his designations to other branches in 1992-1993 and 1994 did not excuse the delay for Case No. 147, which was submitted long before those designations. Fourth, a heavy workload is not an excuse; the proper recourse was to request a reasonable extension of time from the Supreme Court, which he failed to do. The Court adopted the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation, imposing a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning. The offensive language in the decision, while noted, was not separately penalized in this resolution.