G.R. No. RTJ-96-1338 September 5, 1997.
ENGINEER FERNANDO S. DIZON, complainant, vs. JUDGE LILIA C. LOPEZ, Regional Trial Court, Branch 109, Pasay City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fernando S. Dizon was convicted of falsification of a private document by respondent Judge Lilia C. Lopez. On April 22, 1993, the promulgation of judgment consisted only of reading the dispositive portion, sentencing him to imprisonment. Complainant and his counsel were not served a copy of the full decision at that time and were told to return later. Despite repeated attempts, complainant did not receive a copy. He filed a partial motion for reconsideration on May 5, 1993, reserving the right to file a more elaborate one upon receipt. On November 29, 1994, he filed an “Omnibus Motion to Annul Promulgation of Sentence and to Dismiss.” Finally, on December 16, 1994, he was served a copy of the decision dated April 22, 1993, which included a fine of P5,000.00. Complainant charged respondent judge with violation of the Constitution (for rendering a decision without clearly expressing the facts and law, and for not deciding within three months), serious misconduct, inefficiency, and falsification (for antedating the decision and adding a fine). Respondent judge explained the delay was due to personal tragedies (deaths in the family), her own health issues (diabetes and hypertension), financial reverses, heavy workload, and lack of stenographers, claiming the decision was prepared but the dispositive portion was withheld to prevent leakage and later incorporated by a social worker.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Lilia C. Lopez is administratively liable for her actions in connection with the promulgation and service of the decision in Criminal Case No. 91-0716.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable for inefficiency. The Court found that respondent violated Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the Constitution, which requires lower courts to decide cases within three months from submission. Merely reading the dispositive portion on April 22, 1993, without providing the full judgment containing the facts and law, did not constitute valid promulgation. The complete decision was served only on December 16, 1994, which was beyond the constitutional period. The Court disapproved of the practice of rendering “sin perjuicio” judgments (incomplete judgments subject to later modification), as respondent’s actions indicated. However, the other charges for violation of the Constitution (regarding the form of the decision), serious misconduct, and falsification were found without merit, as the written decision ultimately contained the required facts and legal basis, and there was no showing of malice. The claim of denial of the right to a speedy trial was also without basis, as the period to appeal only began upon actual receipt of the judgment. Mitigating factors included respondent’s otherwise unblemished record of public service, personal tragedies, health issues, and heavy workload. Following precedent, the Court reprimanded respondent judge with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.