G.R. No. MTJ-05-1603. October 25, 2005.
JAIME R. SEVILLA, Complainant, vs. JUDGE EDISON F. QUINTIN, MeTC, Branch 56, Malabon City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jaime R. Sevilla charged respondent Judge Edison F. Quintin with gross ignorance of the law, bias, and grave abuse of discretion for allegedly granting fifteen indiscriminate postponements in Criminal Case Nos. 5300-96 to 5503-96 for violation of B.P. 22, causing undue delay. The complainant, the private complainant and brother of the accused, alleged these postponements violated rules on speedy disposition and constituted corrupt practices. He also faulted the judge for granting a belated verbal motion to file a demurrer to evidence.
Respondent judge denied the charges. He explained that the cases, filed in 1996, were inherited from a predecessor. A fire in 2000 gutted the courthouse, necessitating reconstitution of records. Many postponements were due to valid reasons: absence of counsels (often by agreement), absence of the public prosecutor, flooding, and an attempt to facilitate a possible demurrer. He argued he acted to manage proceedings amid practical constraints, noting his branch only heard criminal cases twice weekly in the mornings.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for the alleged undue delay in the disposition of the criminal cases.

RULING

Yes, but not for all charges. The Supreme Court found the respondent not guilty of gross ignorance of the law, bias, or violation of R.A. 3019. The evidence did not establish manifest partiality, evident bad faith, or gross inexcusable negligence amounting to corrupt practice. The Court recognized the challenging circumstances, including the fire and the limited court schedule.
However, the respondent was held liable for violating the Rules of Court and the Code of Judicial Conduct. Judges have a duty to control court proceedings and ensure the speedy disposition of cases. While some delays were justified, the judge failed to exercise firm control to prevent undue delay, particularly by tolerating repeated absences of counsels. His grant of a verbal motion for leave to file a demurrer, though unopposed, was an irregularity. These acts constituted a failure to observe Rule 119 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure and violated Rule 1.02 (promoting public confidence) and Rule 3.05 (disposing of court business promptly) of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Considering the mitigating circumstance of the limited court schedule, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00) with a warning.