A.M. No. RTJ-01-1664; November 22, 2001
Alfredo Cañada, Jr., complainant, vs. Judge Victorino Montecillo, RTC, Branch 57, Cebu City, respondent.

FACTS

The complainant charged respondent Judge Victorino Montecillo with violating constitutional and administrative rules on case disposition, specifically concerning Civil Case No. CEB-14427, a land dispute. The procedural history was protracted. On February 13, 1995, during the presentation of evidence, respondent judge observed the parties were substantially agreed on major points. He thus ordered them to submit a “Proposed Stipulation of Facts” within thirty days, after which a final stipulation would be drafted and the case submitted for decision. The defendant corporation, however, merely reiterated its defenses in its submission.
Complainant filed a motion for summary judgment on June 5, 1995. This motion remained unresolved for seven months until respondent judge denied it on January 9, 1996. Subsequently, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration on January 28, 1996. This motion was still unresolved at the time the administrative complaint was filed. Respondent judge, in his defense, cited his heavy caseload, including assignments as acting presiding judge in three other branches, and his belief that the case could be decided promptly based on the anticipated stipulations.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Victorino Montecillo is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving pending incidents in Civil Case No. CEB-14427.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for undue delay. The legal logic is anchored on the constitutional mandate for the speedy disposition of cases. Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution requires lower courts to decide cases within three months from submission. Administrative Circular No. 1-88 reinforces this duty, enjoining judges to act promptly on all matters. The chronology establishes clear delays: the motion for summary judgment took seven months to resolve, and the subsequent motion for reconsideration was left pending indefinitely.
The Court rejected the respondent’s justifications. While it acknowledged his heavy workload from multiple branch assignments, this does not excuse the failure to comply with mandatory periods. A judge is duty-bound to organize the court and manage its docket to ensure the reasonable dispatch of business. If a delay becomes unavoidable, the proper recourse is for the judge to request an extension from the Supreme Court beforehand—a step respondent judge failed to take. His inaction constituted a failure to perform his official duty with reasonable diligence. However, considering the mitigating circumstance of his extra-heavy caseload, the Court tempered the penalty. Following the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation, a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), deductible from his retirement benefits, was imposed.