G.R. No. AM No. 2005-CFI April 27, 1981
DOCTOR ALFONSO DE LEON, complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE P. CASTRO, Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch V-B, respondent.

FACTS

In a civil case before the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch V-B, presided over by respondent Judge Jose P. Castro, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 10, 1977. The plaintiffs filed their opposition, and the motion was submitted for resolution on October 14, 1977, after the parties had filed their memoranda. Due to a significant delay in the resolution of this pending motion, plaintiff Alfonso de Leon filed a verified administrative complaint on August 14, 1978, seeking disciplinary action against the judge. The complainant alleged that the delay was influenced by the judge’s intimate friendship with the defendants’ counsel.
In his comment, respondent judge explained that his attention was only called to the unresolved motion on May 5, 1978, when the complainant filed a motion for its early resolution. He attributed the delay to the misplacement of the case records (expediente), stating it was unintentional and beyond his control. He subsequently resolved the motion on August 16, 1978. The complainant later opted to withdraw the complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose P. Castro is administratively liable for the undue delay in resolving a pending motion.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court, through Justice Aquino, emphasized the constitutional and statutory duty of judges to decide cases and resolve matters within ninety days from submission. The Court Administrator noted that the delay could have been avoided had the respondent implemented a proper system, such as a checklist, to monitor all matters submitted for resolution. The failure to adopt such a system rendered the delay inexcusable.
The judge’s defense of misplaced records and unintentional oversight was deemed unmeritorious. This neglect constituted a violation of Section 11(1), Article X of the Constitution and involved the submission of false certificates of service under the Judiciary Law, as the judge would have certified that no matters remained unresolved beyond the period. The complainant’s desistance does not preclude administrative action, as the delay is a matter of record affecting public interest and the administration of justice. Consequently, the Court censured Judge Castro and warned that a repetition would warrant a more drastic penalty. A copy of the decision was ordered attached to his personal record.