A.M. No. MTJ-10-1764, September 15, 2010
Judith S. Soluren, Complainant, vs. Judge Lizabeth G. Torres, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 60, Mandaluyong City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Judith S. Soluren was the accused in Criminal Case No. 100833 for grave oral defamation pending before respondent Judge Lizabeth G. Torres. The City Prosecutor, having dismissed the complaint in the preliminary investigation, filed a Motion to Withdraw Information on September 4, 2007. The private complainant filed an opposition, but the Prosecutor’s Office subsequently denied her motion for reconsideration. The Motion to Withdraw Information was thus submitted for resolution on December 12, 2007.
Despite the filing of an Urgent Motion to Resolve on July 30, 2008, and a Second Urgent Motion on September 18, 2008, Judge Torres failed to act on the motion. As of the filing of the administrative complaint in February 2009, the motion remained unresolved for over one year and two months from its submission. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) repeatedly directed Judge Torres to file her comment on the administrative complaint, but she failed to comply with these directives as well.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Lizabeth G. Torres is administratively liable for gross inefficiency for her failure to resolve the pending Motion to Withdraw Information within the mandatory reglementary period.

RULING

Yes, Judge Torres is guilty of gross inefficiency. The 1987 Constitution , under Section 15(1), Article VIII, mandates lower court judges to decide cases and matters within a period of ninety (90) days. This constitutional edict is reinforced by Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to dispose of the court’s business promptly. The reglementary period is mandatory and indispensable to prevent needless delays and ensure the speedy disposition of cases.
The Court has consistently held that failure to decide or resolve matters within this period constitutes gross inefficiency, warranting administrative sanction. While aware of heavy caseloads, the Court emphasizes that any extension must be formally requested and granted; a judge cannot unilaterally prolong the period. Delay, regardless of duration, undermines public faith in the judiciary and deprives parties of their right to a speedy disposition. Judge Torres offered no explanation for the inordinate delay, nor did she comply with orders to comment on the complaint, demonstrating a disregard for judicial duty.
Under the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering an order is a less serious charge. The Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) on Judge Torres, with a stern warning against repetition, and ordered her to resolve the pending motion with utmost dispatch.