G.R. No. RTJ-97-1388 September 5, 1997
ELEAZAR B. GASPAR, complainant, vs. JUDGE WILLIAM H. BAYHON, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Eleazar B. Gaspar, a Court Interpreter, was the respondent in a separate administrative case (Adm. Matter No. P-92-670) filed by Remedios Antonino. Respondent Judge William H. Bayhon was the fifth Executive Judge tasked to investigate that case. Judge Bayhon compulsorily retired on July 12, 1997. However, due to his alleged failure to submit his investigation report on the case against Gaspar, Gaspar filed an unverified complaint on August 30, 1996, later supplanted by a verified complaint on November 29, 1996. Consequently, Judge Bayhon was unable to receive his retirement benefits. The administrative case against Judge Bayhon was assigned for investigation to several judges in succession: Judges Job B. Madayag, Julio R. Logarta, Rosalio G. de la Rosa, and Romeo J. Callejo, before finally being referred to Judge Bayhon. Judge Bayhon expedited the reception of evidence and, after concluding it, gave the parties time to submit memoranda. He explained he could not immediately submit his Report and Recommendation because the records did not contain the proceedings and transcripts from the previous judges. He issued an order to compel the submission of missing transcripts but learned one stenographer was no longer with the judiciary and another was not connected to the relevant court.

ISSUE

Whether the delay in the submission of the report on Adm. Matter No. P-92-670 constitutes malicious delay in the administration of justice and a violation of Rule 2, Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the administrative case. The complaint failed to allege any specific act imputing malice to respondent Judge. Malice requires a deliberate evil intent to inflict damage, which was not alleged or proven. Regarding the alleged violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, the Court found that the delay was not attributable to Judge Bayhon. The case had been transferred multiple times between courts and judges, and Judge Bayhon lacked control over the completion of missing records and transcripts from proceedings before other salas. The Court cited precedent that a judge should not be blamed for delay beyond his control, absent bad faith or ulterior motive. The Court observed that Judge Bayhon resolved the matter within a reasonable time under the circumstances. While delay should generally be avoided, in this case, it was not attended by malice or ill motive. The Court held that imposing a sanction on the already compulsorily retired judge would serve no administrative purpose. Therefore, the case was dismissed, and the release of Judge Bayhon’s retirement benefits was ordered.