G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-12-1806; April 7, 2014
Office of the Court Administrator, Complainant, vs. Judge Borromeo R. Bustamante, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Alaminos City, Pangasinan, Respondent.

FACTS

A judicial audit was conducted on September 21, 2010, by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) on the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Alaminos City, Pangasinan, then presided by Judge Borromeo R. Bustamante, who was set to retire on November 6, 2010. The audit revealed that, as of the audit date, there were 35 cases submitted for decision (21 of which were already beyond the reglementary period) and 23 cases with pending incidents for resolution (19 of which were already beyond the reglementary period). The OCA, via a Memorandum dated October 6, 2010, directed Judge Bustamante to: (1) explain his failure to decide/resolve the specified cases within the reglementary period; (2) decide the listed cases with dispatch and submit copies of the decisions within three days after his compulsory retirement; and (3) resolve the pending incidents with dispatch and submit copies of the resolutions within the same period.
In his letter of compliance dated November 8, 2010, Judge Bustamante explained that he had decided all cases submitted before his last day in office, except two civil cases (Civil Case Nos. 1937 and 2056) due to a lack of transcripts of stenographic notes (TSN) taken before his tenure, necessitating retaking of testimonies. He attributed his failure to decide cases within the reglementary period to the volume of work, pressing matters like urgent motions, and trial duties. Regarding pending incidents, he reported having resolved some, while others required further hearing, awaited resolution of related cases in other courts, or were overlooked due to oversight. He submitted copies of the decisions and resolutions he issued.
The OCA, in its Memorandum dated March 24, 2011, reported that Judge Bustamante had decided 33 of the 35 cases for decision, with 20 of these decided beyond the reglementary period (10 of which were over a year late). He resolved 6 of the 23 cases with pending incidents, all beyond the reglementary period. For the remaining 17 cases, his reasons (need for further hearing, awaiting other cases’ resolution, oversight) were deemed unconvincing, as he failed to submit orders setting hearings or holding resolutions in abeyance. The OCA recommended a fine of ₱20,000.00 for gross inefficiency.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Borromeo R. Bustamante is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering decisions and orders.

RULING

Yes, Judge Bustamante is administratively liable. The Court affirmed the OCA’s findings and recommendation. The Constitution, Code of Judicial Conduct, and jurisprudence mandate that judges decide cases within 90 days from submission. Failure to observe this period constitutes gross inefficiency and a ground for administrative sanction, absent sufficient justification. Judge Bustamante’s reasons—heavy caseload, volume of work, and oversight—are not valid justifications for the delay. Judges are required to request extensions from the Court if unable to comply with the reglementary period, which Judge Bustamante failed to do. His delay deprived litigants of their right to a speedy disposition of cases and undermined public confidence in the judiciary.
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge, punishable by suspension or a fine of more than ₱10,000.00 but not exceeding ₱20,000.00. Considering the significant number of cases decided/resolved beyond the reglementary period, and that Judge Bustamante had already retired (making dismissal or suspension inapplicable), the Court imposed a fine of ₱20,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.