AM RTJ 00 1575; (September, 2001) (Digest)
A.M. No. RTJ-00-1575. September 17, 2001. ISAGANI RIZON, complainant, vs. JUDGE OSCAR E. ZERNA, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Isagani Rizon filed an election protest before the Regional Trial Court of Tubod, Lanao del Norte, Branch VII, presided by respondent Judge Oscar Zerna, contesting the mayoral election of William P. Ong. The case was submitted for decision on November 22, 1998. After three months with no decision rendered, complainant filed a “Motion to Render Early Decision” on February 26, 1999, which he claimed was ignored. This prompted him to file an administrative complaint for willful delay in rendering a decision.
In his comment, respondent Judge did not deny the delay. He attributed it to the time-consuming process of examining the questioned ballots one by one. He stated that a decision was eventually rendered a week or two after the administrative complaint was filed with the Supreme Court on March 29, 1999. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) noted respondent’s history of delay, citing a prior judicial audit and numerous indorsements concerning delayed cases.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for the delay in deciding the election protest.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is guilty of gross inefficiency. Section 258 of the Omnibus Election Code mandates that election contests must be decided within thirty days from submission for decision. The case was submitted on November 22, 1998, and the decision was rendered only around mid-April 1999, which is at least three and a half months beyond the statutory period. Respondent’s excuse—that the delay was due to meticulously examining the ballots—was deemed flimsy by the Court. The prescribed 30-day period was deemed sufficient for the task, and he could have requested a formal extension from the Court to avoid any suspicion of impropriety.
The Court emphasized that election cases involve paramount public interest, requiring prompt resolution to dispel uncertainty about the true choice of the electorate. Delay in such cases is a serious matter. Furthermore, the complainant’s subsequent filing of an Affidavit of Desistance does not absolve respondent, as administrative liability is not dependent on the complainant’s will but on the Court’s duty to uphold judicial discipline. Considering respondent’s propensity for delay as shown by his record, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning.