G.R. No. A.M. No. 1970-JDRC July 9, 1981
Bernarda Cononizado, complainant, vs. Hon. Regina Ordoñez-Benitez, JDRC, Manila, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Bernarda Cononizado, a lawyer, charged Judge Regina Ordoñez-Benitez of the Juvenile and Domestic Relations Court of Manila with abuse of discretion and refusal to perform her duty in Civil Case No. 29211. The case originated from a 1956 support claim. A writ of execution was ordered by a previous judge in 1976. In 1977, complainant filed a motion for an alias writ of execution. Respondent judge, however, set the motion for hearing and subsequently granted a series of postponements requested by the opposing counsel, who raised various grounds including being busy with other cases and questioning the need for support. The complainant objected, arguing the issuance had become a ministerial duty. The judge later set the opposing counsel’s motion to dismiss for hearing but did not act on complainant’s motions for reconsideration, causing significant delay.
The respondent judge defended her actions by citing her heavy workload, with over 4,700 cases under her court’s exclusive jurisdiction, and the voluminous seven-volume record of this particular case. She argued she needed time to familiarize herself with the extensive background and that judges, being human, have limits. She contended she was performing her duties to the best of her ability, as reflected in her accomplishment reports to the Supreme Court.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge committed an abuse of discretion and neglected her duty by unduly delaying the resolution of a motion for an alias writ of execution.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court found her excuses lacking in merit. The incident involved a simple motion for an alias writ of execution, which did not necessitate a review of the entire voluminous case record. It was sufficient to examine the decision and the subsequent incidents. The judge failed to exercise sound discretion by prioritizing procedural delays over the substantive ends of justice. Judicial discretion must be exercised with a view to serving justice and fairness, considering the merits of the motion and the reasonableness of any objection, rather than mere convenience or workload. The undue postponements and failure to promptly resolve pending motions constituted neglect of duty. Accordingly, the Court reprimanded and admonished Judge Ordoñez-Benitez to resolve all pending motions within the period prescribed by law, warning that future failures would be dealt with more severely. A copy of the decision was ordered placed in her personal file.