AM 2507; (August, 1981) (Digest)
A.M. No. 2507-CFI August 10, 1981
RICARDO B. MOYA, complainant, vs. JUDGE RICARDO TENSUAN, District Judge, CFI, Q.C., respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Ricardo B. Moya filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Ricardo P. Tensuan for delay in the disposition of Criminal Case No. Q-4882, “People vs. Flordeliza Ramirez.” Moya alleged that from August 1979 to March 1980, the judge falsely certified having no pending motions or decisions, while the case remained unresolved until April 1980, violating the 90-day reglementary period under the Judiciary Act. The case, where Moya was the complaining witness against his wife, resulted in the accused’s acquittal.
Judge Tensuan, in his comment, explained the case was deemed submitted for decision on November 10, 1979, and he rendered the decision on February 4, 1980—the 86th day—thus within the 90-day period. He attributed any delay to a heavy docket of over 1,000 cases and suggested the complaint was a retaliatory act due to the acquittal. Records from a Court Administrator inquiry confirmed the decision was dated February 4, 1980, but its promulgation was repeatedly reset and only occurred on May 12, 1980.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Tensuan is administratively liable for delay in the disposition of the criminal case.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that judges must be punctual and diligent to avoid dissatisfaction with the administration of justice. While the decision was signed within the 90-day period on February 4, 1980, the promulgation was delayed until May 12, 1980. The Court clarified that compliance with the reglementary period is reckoned from the date the case is submitted for decision until the decision is received by the Clerk of Court for promulgation, not merely the date of signing.
The Court found that the judge failed to ensure the prompt promulgation of his decision. Regardless of his heavy caseload or the complainant’s alleged retaliatory motive, the judge had a duty to direct the immediate setting of the promulgation after signing the decision. His inaction constituted a lack of requisite circumspection and diligence. Consequently, the Court admonished Judge Tensuan to exercise greater promptness in his duties, noting the resolution in his personal record.