G.R. No. RTJ-08-2152. January 18, 2010.
LUMINZA DELOS REYES, Complainant vs. JUDGE DANILO S. CRUZ and CLERK OF COURT V GODOLFO R. GUNDRAN, of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 152, Pasig City, Respondents.

FACTS

The complainant, Luminza Delos Reyes, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Danilo S. Cruz and Clerk of Court Godolfo R. Gundran of the RTC, Branch 152, Pasig City, for dereliction of duty. The complaint stemmed from LRC Case No. R-5740 where Delos Reyes was the defendant. Judge Cruz was charged with undue delay in rendering a decision, as the case was submitted for decision on April 9, 2004, but a decision was rendered only on July 30, 2007, exceeding the 90-day reglementary period by over three years. Judge Cruz admitted the delay but cited his illnesses (diabetes, cataract surgeries, and heart complications) and heavy workload as reasons. He did not request an extension of time to decide the case. Clerk of Court Gundran was charged with failure to timely transmit the records to the appellate court after Delos Reyes filed a notice of appeal on September 6, 2007. Gundran claimed he instructed his staff to prepare the records but discovered the judge had not issued an order giving due course to the appeal; the records were eventually transmitted on March 28, 2008. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended dismissing the charge against Judge Cruz with a warning and suspending Gundran for one month and one day for simple neglect of duty.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Danilo S. Cruz and Clerk of Court Godolfo R. Gundran are administratively liable for the delays incurred in LRC Case No. R-5740.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Court found Judge Cruz GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision, a less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. His reasons of illness and heavy workload were insufficient; he should have requested an extension of time from the Court. The delay of over three years violated the constitutional mandate for speedy case disposition. He was fined ₱11,000.00. The Court found Clerk of Court Gundran GUILTY of simple neglect of duty, a less grave offense under civil service rules. As branch clerk, he had a non-delegable duty to ensure the timely transmittal of records within 30 days after perfection of appeal. His failure to follow up on his instructions and verify the completeness of the records constituted neglect. He was suspended for two months without salary and benefits. Both respondents were sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.