AM MTJ 04 1546; (July, 2005) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-04-1546. July 29, 2005. SPS. ANGEL and FELINA DUMAUA, Complainants, vs. JUDGE ANGERICO B. RAMIREZ, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT, GAMU, ISABELA, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainants Sps. Angel and Felina Dumaua filed an administrative complaint against Judge Angerico B. Ramirez for undue delay in resolving their motion for execution of judgment. The motion arose from a consolidated ejectment and ownership case (Civil Case Nos. 745 and 750) where the complainants were the prevailing party following a decision rendered by respondent judge on March 8, 2001. The complainants filed their motion for execution thereafter, but multiple scheduled hearings were cancelled due to the judge’s absences.
Despite follow-ups, including a formal letter of assistance sent to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court, respondent judge failed to act promptly. In his Comment to the administrative complaint, the judge claimed he had granted the motion via an Order dated July 6, 2001, and issued a corresponding writ of execution on December 27, 2002. However, he offered no explanation for the seventeen-month delay between the order granting execution and the issuance of the writ.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Angerico B. Ramirez is administratively liable for gross inefficiency due to undue delay in resolving the motion for execution and issuing the corresponding writ.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is guilty of gross inefficiency. The Supreme Court emphasized that public confidence in the judiciary hinges on the prompt disposition of cases and court matters. A judge is mandated to resolve motions and incidents within a ninety-day reglementary period. The delay of seventeen months in issuing the writ of execution after the order granting the motion constitutes a clear violation of this duty.
The Court found the delay inexcusable, as respondent judge failed to provide any justification for the protracted period. This failure is deemed an admission of negligence. Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering an order is a less serious charge, punishable by a fine exceeding Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) but not exceeding Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00). Accordingly, the Court modified the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommended penalty and imposed a fine of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00) with a stern warning against repetition.