G.R. No. RTJ-02-1722. September 24, 2002.
Francisco Concillo, Matilde Concillo Movilla, Simeona Concillo, and Salvacion Concillo Movilla, complainants, vs. Judge Santos T. Gil, RTC-Br. 6, Tacloban City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants charged respondent Judge Santos T. Gil with Gross Inefficiency and Misconduct in Office. The complaint alleged that Judge Gil failed to decide LRC No. N-279, an application for original registration of land, within the 90-day period from its submission for decision on September 17, 1998. Complainants further alleged that the judge was impelled by ill-motive, having demanded a share in the subject property, and that he was criminally liable under Article 1741 of the Revised Penal Code for falsely certifying in his monthly Certificates of Service that he had no pending cases submitted for decision, when LRC No. N-279 remained unresolved. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the complaint to Judge Gil for comment. After he failed to initially comply, a tracer was issued. In his Comment dated December 7, 2001, Judge Gil explained that upon assuming office in June 1998, he inherited many pending cases, including LRC No. N-279 (filed in 1988), and that despite conducting hearings diligently, cases submitted for decision accumulated. He denied demanding any share in the property, asserting his integrity, and attached a duplicate original of the Decision dated February 28, 2001, which he finally rendered in the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Santos T. Gil is administratively liable for: (1) undue delay in deciding LRC No. N-279; and (2) misconduct in office for allegedly demanding a share in the subject property.

RULING

1. On the charge of undue delay: The Court found Judge Gil administratively liable for gross inefficiency. The land registration case was submitted for decision on September 17, 1998, but was decided only on February 28, 2001—a delay of almost three years, in violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 15(1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which require judges to decide cases within three months. The Court emphasized that delay erodes public confidence in the judiciary and that heavy caseload is not a sufficient excuse, as judges may request extensions. Applying the rules in force at the time of the delay, the Court imposed a fine of P5,000.00. The OCA also recommended a judicial audit of RTC-Br. 6 due to irregularities in the judge’s monthly reports.
2. On the charge of misconduct: The Court dismissed this charge for lack of substantiation. Complainants failed to detail their allegation or support it with affidavits or documents as required by Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. The OCA had similarly recommended dismissal due to insufficient evidence.
DISPOSITIVE:
Respondent Judge Santos T. Gil was FINED P5,000.00 for undue delay in deciding LRC No. N-279, with a stern warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court Management Office of the OCA was directed to conduct an immediate judicial audit of RTC-Br. 6, Tacloban City. The charge of misconduct was dismissed.