A.M. No. MTJ-02-1396. March 15, 2004
Esterlina Acuzar, complainant, vs. Judge Gaydifredo T. Ocampo, Municipal Trial Court, Tupi, South Cotabato, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Esterlina Acuzar filed an administrative complaint charging Judge Gaydifredo T. Ocampo with gross misconduct, bias, and partiality. She alleged that as the plaintiff in a simple collection case (Civil Case No. 412) filed in November 1998, no action had been taken on her case for nearly three years. She claimed the delay was due to the respondent judge’s partiality, as the defendant was a relative of the judge’s deceased wife, and that the defendant had boasted he would give the money to the judge instead of paying her.
In his comment, respondent judge denied the charges. He explained that trial had commenced and delays were due to numerous postponements filed by both parties’ counsel, which he granted to avoid charges of denying due process. He clarified that the defendant was only a very distant relative, not within the prohibited sixth civil degree, and vehemently denied any bribery. He asserted the complaint was fabricated harassment.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Gaydifredo T. Ocampo is administratively liable for the charges of undue delay, partiality, and corruption.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision but dismissed the charges of partiality and corruption for lack of merit. On the charge of bias and corruption, the Court agreed with the Court Administrator’s evaluation that the alleged familial relationship was beyond the prohibited degree and no clear, convincing evidence was presented to prove bribery. Complainant’s subsequent withdrawal of her complaint, admitting the defendant merely used the judge’s name to threaten her and that she won the case, bolstered this finding.
However, the Court held respondent judge liable for inefficiency and undue delay. A simple collection case involving P20,000 remained pending for nearly three years, which constitutes inordinate delay indicative of inefficiency, violating the constitutional mandate for speedy disposition of cases. While postponements were at the parties’ behest, a judge has the affirmative duty under Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct to dispose of court business promptly and to control the proceedings to prevent such delays. The delay here was unreasonable.
Under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay is a less serious charge. Accordingly, the Court modified the recommended penalty and imposed a fine of P11,000.00 with a stern warning.