A.M. No. MTJ-11-1796; June 13, 2012
FE D. VALDEZ, Complainant, vs. JUDGE LIZABETH G. TORRES, METC, Branch 60, Mandaluyong City, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Fe D. Valdez filed an action for damages against Prudential Guarantee & Assurance, Inc. and its broker, which was raffled to the court presided by respondent Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres. The case, governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, was submitted for decision on July 19, 2006, after the parties filed their position papers. Despite this, the case remained unresolved for years. The complainant filed eight separate motions for immediate resolution between June 27, 2007, and January 17, 2010, to no avail. Frustrated by the undue delay, the complainant instituted the present administrative complaint on June 4, 2010.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required the respondent to comment on the complaint. Registry receipts confirmed the respondent received the OCA’s indorsement and a subsequent tracer, but she failed to file any comment. Furthermore, the respondent also did not comply with a Supreme Court Resolution requiring a manifestation. It was noted that the Supreme Court had already dismissed the respondent from service in a separate administrative matter promulgated on November 23, 2010, prior to the resolution of this case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision and for non-compliance with directives from the OCA and the Supreme Court.

RULING

Yes, the respondent is administratively liable. On the merits, the Court found the respondent guilty of undue delay in resolving the civil case. A case submitted under the Summary Procedure must be decided within thirty (30) days from receipt of the last affidavit and position paper. The respondent’s failure to decide the case for nearly four years after its submission constituted a clear violation of this rule and constituted gross inefficiency, which is a less serious charge under the Rules of Court. The Court emphasized that the prompt disposition of cases is a paramount duty of judges, and failure to do so undermines public confidence in the judiciary.
Regarding procedural non-compliance, the respondent’s failure to submit her comment to the OCA and her manifestation to the Court, despite due notice, amounted to insubordination and gross neglect of duty. This failure constituted a waiver of her right to defend herself against the allegations. Considering the respondent had already been dismissed from service in a previous administrative case, the imposable penalty of suspension was no longer applicable. Consequently, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), to be deducted from her accrued leave credits. The OCA was directed to compute and effect the deduction accordingly.