G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-10-2241; March 9, 2011 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-3224-RTJ)
Case Title: FERDINAND C. BACOLOT, Complainant, vs. HON. FRANCISCO D. PAÑO, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Branch 93, San Pedro, Laguna, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ferdinand C. Bacolot, authorized by his cousin and plaintiff Edmund B. Gallardo via Special Power of Attorney, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Francisco D. Paño for Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Dereliction of Duty concerning Civil Case No. SPL-0819. The complaint stemmed from the following incidents:
1. On September 30, 2005, after the defendant rested its case and moved to file a formal offer of evidence, Judge Paño issued an order granting the motion and giving the plaintiff ten days to comment. The defendant failed to file its formal offer.
2. Instead of submitting the case for decision upon this failure, Judge Paño reset the hearing.
3. On September 4, 2006, the defendant filed a Motion to Recall Witness. The complainant filed a comment on October 30, 2008.
4. Judge Paño resolved this motion only on November 10, 2008—a delay of over two years.
The complainant alleged that: (a) setting further hearings after the defendant rested its case constituted grave misconduct; (b) the two-year delay in resolving the Motion to Recall Witness constituted gross neglect of duty; and (c) failure to ensure efficient delivery of court processes, causing postponements, constituted dereliction of duty.
In his defense, Judge Paño argued that: (a) granting a motion to recall witness is discretionary and judicial in nature, not subject to administrative complaint; (b) the delay in resolving the motion was due to a lack of proof that plaintiffs received the order to comment, which he rectified upon discovery in October 2008; (c) the hearing held after the defendant rested was due to inadvertence, without corrupt intent; and (d) his staff was properly supervised regarding court processes.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Francisco D. Paño is administratively liable for the charges of Grave Misconduct, Gross Neglect of Duty, and Dereliction of Duty.

RULING

The Court found Judge Paño liable for undue delay in rendering an order but not for grave misconduct or dereliction of duty as charged.
1. On Gross Neglect of Duty / Undue Delay: Judge Paño is administratively liable for the two-year delay in resolving the Motion to Recall Witness. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to dispose of court business promptly. The delay, whether unintentional, constitutes remissness in his duties. A judge is directly responsible for proper court management and cannot shield himself behind the inefficiency of court personnel.
2. On Grave Misconduct: The charge has no merit. The act of holding a hearing after the defendant rested its case pertains to the judge’s judicial functions. Judicial acts are not subject to disciplinary action unless tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption, or bad faith, which the complainant failed to establish. The proper recourse for aggrieved parties is through judicial remedies, not administrative complaints.
3. On Dereliction of Duty: The charge regarding failure to supervise the delivery of court processes was not substantiated in the ruling.
DISPOSITIVE: Judge Francisco D. Paño was ADMONISHED for being remiss in his duties and STRONGLY WARNED that a repetition would warrant a severe penalty.