G.R. No. MTJ-02-1450. September 23, 2003
Ramiro S. De Joya, Complainant, vs. Judge Augustus C. Diaz, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 37, Quezon City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Ramiro S. De Joya filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Augustus C. Diaz for gross negligence and conduct unbecoming a judge. The complaint stemmed from an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 24930) filed by De Joya, which was raffled to Judge Diaz’s sala. The case, governed by the rules on summary procedure, was submitted for decision on September 29, 2000, after the defendants failed to file a responsive pleading or attend the hearing on the motion for summary judgment. Despite the mandatory 30-day period for deciding summary procedure cases, Judge Diaz rendered his decision only on February 5, 2001, or after a delay of over four months.
Subsequently, De Joya filed a sworn letter manifesting his withdrawal of the complaint, attributing it to a product of miscommunication after re-examining the circumstances. He requested the Court to consider the case closed. In his defense, Judge Diaz explained that the delay was an oversight caused by his heavy caseload, which ranged from approximately 4,395 to 4,605 cases from September 2000 to February 2001. He sought the Court’s understanding and gave an assurance of future vigilance.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Augustus C. Diaz is administratively liable for his failure to decide an unlawful detainer case within the reglementary period, notwithstanding the complainant’s subsequent withdrawal of the administrative complaint.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that the withdrawal or desistance of a complainant does not automatically result in the dismissal of an administrative case against a judge. The Court retains its disciplinary authority and paramount interest in preserving judicial integrity and efficiency, independent of a complainant’s wishes.
The legal logic is clear: Decision-making is a judge’s primordial duty. The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates the prompt disposition of court business and requires judges to decide cases within prescribed periods. Civil Case No. 24930, being an unlawful detainer case under summary procedure, underscored the necessity for expeditious resolution and was required by law to be decided within 30 days from its submission on September 29, 2000. Judge Diaz’s failure to render judgment until February 5, 2001, constituted a clear violation of this rule, amounting to inefficiency.
While the Court acknowledged the heavy caseload cited by Judge Diaz, it pointed out that this circumstance does not excuse the delay. The proper recourse was to request a reasonable extension of time from the Court, which is routinely granted if meritorious. His failure to seek such an extension rendered his explanation insufficient. Consequently, the Court found him liable for inefficiency and imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00) with a stern warning against repetition.