G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-91-598. February 9, 1993
ATTY. CORNELIO C. CRUZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROMULO C. BASA, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Cornelio C. Cruz, the private prosecutor in twenty estafa cases (Crim. Cases Nos. 4194 to 4204-b, 4205 to 4208, 4216, 4219 and 4226) against Rodolfo Cruz before the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Norzagaray, Bulacan, presided by respondent Judge Romulo C. Basa, filed an administrative complaint for serious misconduct. The complainant charged that respondent judge delayed the resolution of the accused’s motion to dismiss, which argued the cases should be governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. The complainant opposed, contending the penalty under Article 315 of the Revised Penal Code placed the cases beyond summary procedure. Respondent judge set the matter for oral argument on February 18, 1991, but failed to resolve it until June 3, 1991, prompting the complainant to file a motion for inhibition. Meanwhile, the complainant discovered that in the Monthly Report of Cases submitted to the Supreme Court Statistics Division on April 30, 1991, respondent judge reported these criminal cases as “disposed of” or dismissed, while they were actually still pending, as evidenced by orders dated June 19, 1991, and August 5, 1991. In his Comment, respondent judge admitted a delay, claiming he had prepared a draft resolution but did not sign it due to motions filed by the complainant and, upon advice of the Executive Judge, opted to inhibit himself. The Office of the Court Administrator, after evaluation, found respondent judge guilty as charged.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Romulo C. Basa is administratively liable for (1) undue delay in resolving a pending motion, and (2) submitting a false monthly report to the Supreme Court Statistics Division.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for both charges.
1. On the delay in resolving the motion: The Court found respondent judge guilty of failing to dispose of the court’s business promptly, violating Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The issue was deemed submitted for resolution on February 18, 1991, but remained unresolved until after the motion for inhibition was filed on June 3, 1991. The explanation of a draft resolution and subsequent inhibition was insufficient to justify the delay of over three months. The Court cited Ubarra v. Tecson and Aquino v. Luntok, emphasizing that delay in resolving incidents within the reglementary period is inexcusable and undermines the administration of justice.
2. On submitting a false monthly report: The Court found respondent judge at fault for reporting the cases as “disposed” in the April 30, 1991, Monthly Report when they were still pending. His claim of an unsigned draft resolution did not justify the false report. The Court noted that if caseload prevented timely disposition, he should have requested an extension from the Court instead of submitting an inaccurate report.
DISPOSITIVE:
The Court REPRIMANDED respondent judge for the delay in resolving the motion and WARNED him that a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely. For submitting a false monthly report, the Court IMPOSED a fine of P5,000.00 on respondent judge, with a WARNING that a similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely. A copy of the resolution was ordered attached to his personal record.