A.M. No. RTJ-16-2478. November 8, 2017. DOMINADOR I. FERRER, JR., Complainant vs. JUDGE ARNIEL A. DATING, Regional Trial Court, Branch 41, Daet, Camarines Norte, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Atty. Dominador I. Ferrer, Jr. filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Arniel A. Dating, then the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court in Daet, Camarines Norte, for abuse of authority and unreasonable delay in the re-raffle of a case. The case in question, a Special Civil Action for Quo Warranto where Ferrer was a respondent, was initially raffled to Judge Dating’s branch. After granting a temporary restraining order, Judge Dating later cited Ferrer and other lawyers for direct contempt, imposed fines, and voluntarily inhibited himself from the case. The case was re-raffled to another branch, whose judge also inhibited himself, necessitating a second re-raffle.
The records for this second re-raffle were transmitted to the Office of the Executive Judge (Judge Dating) on March 15, 2011. Ferrer alleged that Judge Dating deliberately caused a delay of over a month in conducting the re-raffle by being consistently unavailable due to leaves of absence and seminar attendance. Judge Dating, in his comment, explained that no raffle was held on the immediately following Thursday because there was an insufficient number of cases to raffle and the judges, including himself, had to travel for a general assembly. He further detailed his subsequent absences for personal leave and judicial seminars.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Arniel A. Dating is administratively liable for the delay in the re-raffle of the case.

RULING

Yes, Judge Dating is guilty of simple neglect of duty. The Court, adopting the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator, held that Judge Dating failed to strictly adhere to the mandatory procedure for raffling cases as prescribed under A.M. No. 03-8-02-SC (Guidelines on the Selection and Designation of Executive Judges). The guidelines explicitly mandate that raffles “shall be regularly conducted” on scheduled days, and the requirement is not contingent on having a substantial number of cases. Judge Dating’s explanation that no raffle was conducted due to an insufficient number of cases and his subsequent absences demonstrated a disregard for this duty stemming from carelessness or indifference.
Simple neglect of duty is defined as the failure to give attention to a task or the disregard of a duty due to carelessness or indifference. It is a less grave offense. While the prescribed penalty is suspension, the Court deemed a fine appropriate to avoid disrupting court operations. Consequently, Judge Dating was fined Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar act would be met with a more severe penalty.