A.M. No. L-1696-MJ. June 19, 1979. SANCHO LAWAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO MOLETA of Bacuag, Surigao Del Norte, respondent.
FACTS:

Sancho Lawan filed a verified administrative complaint against Municipal Judge Antonio P. Moleta, alleging four charges: (1) delay in rendering judgment in Criminal Case No. 869 for oral defamation, which was submitted for decision on January 15, 1977, but decided only on May 23, 1977, and promulgated on July 1, 1977, thus violating the 90-day constitutional period; (2) failure to pay just debts, specifically an amount owed to Sergio Lawan since 1972; (3) habitual drunkenness; and (4) absenteeism and tardiness in office. The complainant, who was the accused in the criminal case and was sentenced to pay a fine, presented himself as an aggrieved party.
In his comment, Judge Moleta denied all charges. Regarding the delay, he argued the 90-day period should be counted from March 1, 1977, the expiry date of a 45-day extension he granted his lone stenographer to transcribe notes, due to a heavy caseload. He presented a receipt showing full payment of his debt to Sergio Lawan’s wife in September 1976. He denied habitual drunkenness, submitting a medical certificate for hypertension advising against alcohol, and challenged the complainant’s lack of supporting affidavits for the drinking and absenteeism charges.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Antonio Moleta is administratively liable for the charges of delayed judgment, failure to pay just debts, habitual drunkenness, and absenteeism and tardiness.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed three charges but found Judge Moleta guilty of undue delay in rendering judgment. The charge of failure to pay just debts was dismissed because the respondent presented a receipt dated September 17, 1976, acknowledging full payment of all accounts, which negated any outstanding debt from 1972. The charge of habitual drunkenness was dismissed for lack of evidence; the medical certificate advising against alcohol due to hypertension, coupled with the complainant’s failure to present any corroborating affidavit, rendered the allegation unsubstantiated. The charge of absenteeism and tardiness was likewise dismissed due to the complainant’s failure to provide any supporting proof.
However, the Court found merit in the charge of delayed judgment. It rejected the respondent’s justification that the 90-day period should commence only after the transcription of stenographic notes. The Court ruled that the period for deciding a case is mandatory and should be counted from the date the case was submitted for decision, which was January 15, 1977. The Court emphasized that judges are duty-bound to decide cases promptly and cannot delay decisions by awaiting transcripts, as they are required to rely on their personal notes and memory. Since the decision was rendered on May 23, 1977, or 128 days after submission, it constituted a clear violation of the constitutional mandate. Consequently, Judge Moleta was REPRIMANDED and ADMONISHED that a repetition would warrant dismissal. The other charges were dismissed.