A.M. No. MTJ-10-1754; October 20, 2010
Narciso Bernardo, Jr., Complainant, vs. Judge Peter M. Montojo, Municipal Trial Court, Romblon, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Narciso Bernardo, Jr., an accused in Criminal Case Nos. 4173-4176 for violations of the Fisheries Code and a member of a cooperative involved in Civil Case No. 490 for damages, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Peter M. Montojo for undue delay in resolving these cases pending in his sala. Bernardo alleged that after hearings on August 16 and October 9, 2007, Judge Montojo took no further action on the criminal cases. He claimed the delay was politically motivated, citing his support for the judge’s political rivals. Bernardo also detailed incidents from the August 16 hearing, including that the judge suggested a court clerk act as his counsel for arraignment—a suggestion not reflected in the official transcript—and that the judge held a private conversation with the opposing counsel. He further asserted that Civil Case No. 490 had seen no action since a hearing in November 2007.
In his Comment, Judge Montojo attributed the delay in the criminal cases to Bernardo’s insistence on being represented by a PAO lawyer. He admitted to talking with the opposing counsel privately but denied discussing the case, arguing Bernardo could not have overheard. He maintained his decisions were based on evidence, not politics, and characterized the complaint as politically motivated. Judge Montojo compulsorily retired on October 23, 2009.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Peter M. Montojo is administratively liable for undue delay in the disposition of the subject cases.

RULING

Yes, Judge Montojo is administratively liable for gross inefficiency due to undue delay. The Court emphasized the constitutional mandate and judicial canons requiring judges to dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within required periods. The 90-day reglementary period for deciding cases is mandatory. Judge Montojo’s inaction on both the criminal and civil cases for extended periods, without offering a valid justification such as a heavy caseload or complexity of issues, constituted a violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Canons 2, 6, and 31 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics. His defense that the delay was caused by the complainant was insufficient to excuse his failure to take appropriate judicial action to move the cases forward.
However, the Court dismissed the charge of political bias for lack of substantiation, noting that mere allegations are not proof. In determining the penalty, the Court considered mitigating factors: the delay pertained to only a few cases, this was his only administrative complaint in nearly six years of service, and he had already retired. Following precedent, the failure to decide within the reglementary period is gross inefficiency typically punishable by fine or suspension. Given his retirement, the Court found the Office of the Court Administrator’s recommendation appropriate. Judge Peter M. Montojo (retired) was FINED Ten Thousand Pesos (₱10,000.00), to be deducted from his retirement benefits.