A.M. No. MTJ-07-1662. June 8, 2007.
AURORA E. BALAJEDEONG, complainant, vs. JUDGE DEOGRACIAS K. DEL ROSARIO, MCTC, PATNONGON, ANTIQUE, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Aurora E. Balajedeong, as attorney-in-fact for plaintiff Paterno Colago, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Deogracias K. Del Rosario for Grave Misconduct, Conduct Unbecoming a Judge, and Delay in the Disposition of Civil Case No. 367, a forcible entry case governed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. The parties submitted their position papers by June 2003. Despite a Motion for Early Decision filed in February 2004, the case remained undecided for nearly three years.
In his Comment, Judge Del Rosario admitted the delay but attributed it to his failing health, citing multiple hospitalizations for a heart ailment starting July 2003 and additional duties from an assignment to another court. He informed the Supreme Court that he eventually decided the case on June 15, 2006. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended re-docketing the complaint and imposing a fine of P30,000.00, considering the respondent’s previous administrative sanctions.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Deogracias K. Del Rosario is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering judgment in Civil Case No. 367.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge is administratively liable for undue delay. The Supreme Court found that Judge Del Rosario violated the mandatory period for deciding cases under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, which requires judgment within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the last affidavits and position papers. The position papers were filed in June 2003, but the decision was rendered only on June 15, 2006—a delay of almost three years.
The Court emphasized that rules prescribing time periods for judicial actions are indispensable to prevent needless delays and ensure the orderly and speedy administration of justice. Judges have a constitutional and statutory duty to decide cases promptly, as mandated by Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution , Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and relevant Canons of Judicial Ethics. While the Court acknowledged the respondent’s health issues, it ruled that such circumstances do not absolve him from liability; he should have requested an extension or taken other appropriate measures to ensure the timely disposition of cases. His failure to do so constituted inefficiency.
Considering his previous administrative infractions where he was fined, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty. Instead of P30,000.00, Judge Deogracias K. Del Rosario was ordered to pay a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) and was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act would be dealt with more severely.