G.R. No. A.M. No. 94-902 March 27, 1995
Emeterio L. Asinas, Jr., complainant, vs. Judge Ernesto T. Trinidad, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Emeterio L. Asinas, Jr., the complaining witness in Criminal Cases Nos. 130338 and 130339 for unjust vexation and malicious mischief, charged respondent Judge Ernesto T. Trinidad with inefficiency/neglect of duty and knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. The cases were governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure. Complainant alleged it took 5 1/2 years to dispose of the cases, and the judgment of acquittal was rendered only on July 22, 1993, or 1 year and 7 months after the cases were submitted for decision on October 19, 1991. Complainant also assailed a portion of the decision doubting his testimony about his camera’s destruction, claiming it was corroborated by witness Rene Villanueva. Respondent judge attributed delays to the parties, citing a motion to suspend proceedings, a petition for certiorari to the Court of Appeals, and an ongoing labor dispute settlement. He claimed complainant later requested deferment of the resolution due to the labor negotiations. The Investigating Judge found unjustifiable delay in rendering judgment but found the charge of an unjust judgment unsubstantiated. The Office of the Court Administrator noted the cases fell under the Summary Procedure, requiring judgment within 30 days after trial termination on December 4, 1991, but it was promulgated on August 2, 1993, a delay of 1 year and 7 months.

ISSUE

1. Whether respondent judge is guilty of inefficiency and neglect of duty for the delay in rendering judgment in criminal cases governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure.
2. Whether respondent judge is guilty of knowingly rendering an unjust and unfounded judgment.

RULING

1. Yes, respondent judge is guilty of unjustifiable delay. Under Section 17 of the Rule on Summary Procedure, judgment should be promulgated not later than 30 days after trial termination. The trial ended on December 4, 1991, but judgment was promulgated on August 2, 1993, a delay of 1 year and 7 months. This failure to decide within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency and is not excusable.
2. No, the charge of knowingly rendering an unjust and unfounded judgment is dismissed for lack of merit. There is no evidence showing the judgment was unreasonable, capricious, or indicative of bad faith or malice. The question of witness credibility rests largely on the trial judge’s appreciation of evidence.
The Court imposed a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND (P5,000.00) PESOS on respondent judge for unjustifiable delay, with a warning. The charge of rendering an unjust judgment was dismissed.