AM 09 2 74 RTC; (June, 2010) (Digest)
A.M. No. 09-2-74-RTC; June 29, 2010
Request of Judge Nino A. Batingana, Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Mati City, Davao Oriental, for extension of time to decide Civil Case No. 2049.
FACTS
Judge Nino A. Batingana, Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 6 in Mati City, Davao Oriental, requested a fourth and fifth extension totaling 180 days to decide Civil Case No. 2049. By a Resolution dated March 30, 2009, the Supreme Court denied these requests, noting it had not received his earlier requests for first, second, and third extensions and that the due date for the decision had already elapsed. The Court directed him to immediately furnish a copy of the decision upon rendition. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) later received a copy of his decision dated October 16, 2009.
The OCA, in a Memorandum dated November 27, 2009, found that based on the judge’s own September 5, 2008 letter stating the case was due for resolution on that date, he incurred a delay of more than one year in rendering the decision. The OCA recommended that Judge Batingana be fined ₱10,000 for this undue delay.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Nino A. Batingana should be held administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision.
RULING
Yes, Judge Batingana is administratively liable. The Court found that he committed undue delay in deciding Civil Case No. 2049. Even assuming his requests for a 180-day extension were granted, the decision would have been due by March 4, 2009. However, he rendered it only on October 16, 2009, a delay exceeding seven months beyond even the extended period. This violates the constitutional mandate for lower courts to decide cases within 90 days and the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to perform duties with reasonable promptness. Such delays undermine public faith in the judiciary.
Undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, punishable by suspension or a fine between ₱10,000 and ₱20,000. The Court noted this was Judge Batingana’s third offense of a similar nature, having been previously fined in two other administrative matters. Considering his repeated infractions, the Court deemed the OCA’s recommended fine of ₱10,000 insufficient. To emphasize the gravity of a third violation and to deter future misconduct, the Court increased the penalty. Judge Nino A. Batingana is FINED ₱25,000 with a stern warning that a repetition will be dealt with most severely.