AM MTJ 00 1297; (March, 2002) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-00-1297. March 7, 2002.
JOSEFINA BANGCO, represented by Oscar Bangco, complainant, vs. JUDGE RODOLFO S. GATDULA, Municipal Trial Court, Balanga, Bataan, respondent.
FACTS
The complainant, Josefina Bangco, through her attorney-in-fact, filed a verified letter-complaint charging respondent Judge Rodolfo S. Gatdula with undue delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 1761, an ejectment case governed by the Rule on Summary Procedure. The complainant alleged that after the defendants failed to file an answer despite substituted service of summons, she filed three motions to declare the defendants in default, which the respondent judge did not act upon. The respondent judge later verbally declared the case submitted for decision. Subsequently, the complainant filed a motion for judgment on the pleadings and later a motion to inhibit the respondent judge, both of which remained unresolved. The respondent judge rendered his decision only on January 7, 1997. In his defense, the respondent judge claimed the delay was due to the complainant’s expressed willingness to settle the case amicably. The case was investigated by Executive Judge Vianzon, who found specific delays in the proceedings.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Rodolfo S. Gatdula is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. 1761.
RULING
Yes, the respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision, a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court. The Court found the respondent judge’s excuse of a pending amicable settlement unmeritorious, as the complainant had abandoned such request by filing successive motions. Under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, judgment should have been rendered within thirty days from the last day of service of summons (by December 15, 1995), but the decision was rendered only on January 7, 1997, a delay of over two years. This constitutes a violation of the judge’s duty to dispose of court business promptly. Considering the respondent judge’s previous administrative sanction and other pending cases, the Court imposed a fine of Fifteen Thousand Pesos (P15,000.00) with a stern warning.