A.M. No. MTJ-05-1604. June 27, 2006. MARITES O. TAM, Complainant, vs. JUDGE JOCELYN G. REGENCIA, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), ASTURIAS-BALAMBAN, CEBU, Respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Marites O. Tam was the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 4003-A for serious illegal detention. She alleged that after the preliminary investigation was submitted for resolution on June 16, 2003, respondent Judge Jocelyn G. Regencia failed to promptly resolve it and forward the records to the Provincial Prosecutor. A motion to resolve was filed on September 19, 2003. The complainant’s father-in-law later discovered that a resolution dated October 31, 2003, finding probable cause only for serious physical injuries, was not released until mid-December 2003. The complainant charged the judge with ignorance of the law, grave abuse of discretion, dereliction of duty, and dishonesty, primarily for the alleged ante-dating and delay.
In her defense, Judge Regencia denied the charges, explaining that she was also acting as judge in two other courts, which consumed her time. She asserted that the resolution was prepared on October 31, 2003, but she withheld its release to await the transcription of stenographic notes for the prosecutor’s review. She claimed the complaint was a product of harassment by the complainant’s family.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jocelyn G. Regencia is administratively liable for the delay in resolving the preliminary investigation and transmitting the records to the Provincial Prosecutor.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable for gross inefficiency. The Supreme Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator’s finding that the charges of ignorance of the law and grave abuse of discretion relating to the finding of probable cause were judicial in nature and not proper subjects of an administrative case, as they could be corrected through judicial remedies. However, the Court found merit in the charge concerning undue delay.
Section 5, Rule 112 of the Rules of Court mandates that within ten days after the preliminary investigation, the investigating judge shall transmit the resolution, together with the records, to the provincial or city prosecutor. The Court held that the judge’s duty to resolve and transmit is mandatory and ministerial. Her resolution, dated October 31, 2003, was not released until December 2003, constituting an unreasonable delay in transmitting the records. Her explanation—that she awaited the transcription of notes—was insufficient to justify the delay, as the rules do not provide for such a waiting period. The delay was a violation of the prescribed procedure and constituted gross inefficiency.
Considering her 11 years of service, lack of prior similar offense, and heavy workload from multiple court assignments as mitigating factors, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (₱5,000.00) and issued a stern warning.