AM MTJ 11 1793; (October, 2011) (Digest)
G.R. No.: A.M. No. MTJ-11-1793; October 19, 2011 (Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 10-2238-MTJ)
Case Title: ANTONIO Y. CABASARES, Complainant, vs. JUDGE FILEMON A. TANDINCO, JR., Municipal Trial Court in Cities, 8th Judicial Region, Calbayog City, Western Samar, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Antonio Y. Cabasares filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Filemon A. Tandinco, Jr. for undue delay in rendering a decision. The complaint stemmed from Criminal Case No. 8864 for Malicious Mischief, which Cabasares filed on February 21, 1994. The case was assigned to respondent Judge’s branch and was submitted for decision as early as February 27, 2002. As of the filing of the administrative complaint on November 6, 2009, no decision had been rendered, constituting a violation of constitutional and ethical rules. In his Comment, respondent Judge explained that he learned of the complaint in December 2009, was hospitalized for high blood pressure from December 10-13, 2009, and was on leave until December 17, 2009. He attributed the oversight to the Christmas season and a heavy workload but stated he eventually prepared and promulgated the decision on January 14, 2010. He prayed for leniency as he had retired on January 15, 2010.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Filemon A. Tandinco, Jr. is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision in violation of Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
RULING
The Supreme Court found respondent Judge GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision. The Court held that the constitutional and ethical mandates require lower courts to decide cases within three months from submission. Respondent Judge failed to render a decision within this reglementary period, which had lapsed years before his 2009 hospitalization, and did not request an extension of time. His explanation that the case “slipped his mind” demonstrated a failure to adopt an effective court management system to track cases. As undue delay is a less serious charge under the Rules of Court, and considering respondent Judge had already retired, the Court imposed a fine of Eleven Thousand Pesos (₱11,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The fine was set taking into account the extent of the delay caused to the parties.