AM 57; (August, 1977) (Digest)
A.M. No. 57-MJ. August 26, 1977. ADORACION TUNA, complainant, vs. HON. SERGIO Y. NAZARENO, Municipal Judge of Tagbina, Surigao del Sur, respondent.
FACTS
Criminal Case No. 36 for murder was filed on September 1, 1971, in the Municipal Court of Tagbina, Surigao del Sur, presided by respondent Judge Sergio Y. Nazareno. After conducting the second stage of the preliminary investigation on November 2, 1971, where a key prosecution witness recanted, Judge Nazareno issued an order dismissing the case against the identified accused, Herminigildo Coritana. The complainant, Adoracion Tuna, sister of the deceased, later inquired about the case and was informed by the judge that he had dismissed it for lack of interest.
Subsequently, the Secretary of Justice, upon receiving a letter from the complainant, discovered that Judge Nazareno had failed to transmit the records of the dismissed case to the Court of First Instance as mandatorily required by Section 12, Rule 112 of the Revised Rules of Court. When ordered to explain, the respondent judge impliedly admitted the non-compliance, attributing it to a lack of funds to defray the expenses for transmitting the records.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Sergio Y. Nazareno is administratively liable for his failure to transmit the records of Criminal Case No. 36 to the Court of First Instance within the prescribed period.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable for undue delay. The Supreme Court found him guilty of unreasonable delay in transmitting the records, violating Section 12, Rule 112. The preliminary investigation was terminated on November 2, 1971, but the records were only remanded on September 29, 1972, after a reminder from the Secretary of Justice in August 1972. This delay of over ten months constituted a neglect of duty.
The Court rejected the judge’s justification of lack of funds as patently untenable. Evidence showed that his court had an appropriation of P150.00, of which only P109.01 had been spent, leaving a balance of P40.99—an amount deemed sufficient to cover transmittal expenses. While the investigating judge recommended a reprimand considering the complainant’s desistance and the Judicial Consultant recommended a 15-day suspension, the Supreme Court imposed a heavier penalty. It considered the failure to comply with a clear procedural rule as a serious infraction. However, acknowledging that no actual prejudice was caused by the delay, the Court deemed a fine equivalent to two months’ salary as a sufficient and appropriate sanction.