G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-14-1841, June 2, 2014
GERSHON N. DULANG, Complainant, vs. JUDGE MARY JOCYLEN G. REGENCIA, MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURT (MCTC), ASTURIAS-BALAMBAN, CEBU, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Gershon N. Dulang filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Mary Jocylen G. Regencia for gross inefficiency, gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, serious misconduct, and serious dereliction of duty. The complaint stemmed from an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 212-B) filed on February 2, 2000, which was submitted for resolution on October 17, 2008. Judge Regencia rendered judgment only on February 18, 2011—over two years after submission and more than 11 years after the case was filed—contrary to the 30-day reglementary period under the Rules on Summary Procedure. Dulang also alleged that after he filed a notice of appeal, Judge Regencia issued an order dated August 1, 2011, directing the postmaster to certify his receipt of the judgment, despite having lost jurisdiction over the case due to the appeal.
Judge Regencia defended the delay by claiming that the ejectment case was intertwined with another pending case before the Regional Trial Court (Civil Case No. T-862) and that she deferred resolution pending the outcome of that case. She also argued she assumed her post only in November 2002 and began presiding over the case in November 2007. She later moved for dismissal of the administrative case, alleging the investigating executive judge was partial (being a “compadre” of Dulang’s lawyer) and that Dulang had been killed.
The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Regencia liable for undue delay in rendering a decision but did not rule on the other charges due to due process considerations. The OCA recommended a fine of ₱20,000.00.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Regencia may be held administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision.

RULING

Yes, Judge Regencia is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision. The Court emphasized that judges must dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within required periods under the Code of Judicial Conduct. The ejectment case, governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure, mandated a decision within 30 days from submission of the last position paper. Judge Regencia’s delay of over two years was unjustified. Her claim of a prejudicial question or an agreement to suspend proceedings was unsupported and found to be a misrepresentation.
The Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty. Considering Judge Regencia’s previous administrative liability for gross inefficiency (where she was fined ₱5,000.00) and her length of service (over 17 years), which aggravated rather than mitigated her offense, the Court imposed a fine of ₱40,000.00. She was sternly warned that repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely. The Court dismissed her allegations of partiality against the investigating judge and held that Dulang’s death did not warrant dismissal of the administrative complaint.