AM MTJ 93 762; (July, 1994) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-93-762. July 25, 1994. Nieves D. Ignacio, complainant, vs. Judge Wilhelmina T. Melania-Arcega, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Nieves Ignacio, sister of the complaining witness in Criminal Case No. 151-92 for Robbery, charged respondent Judge with Falsification and Undue Delay. The preliminary investigation was concluded on October 5, 1992, with the judge allegedly promising a resolution within ten days. By December 1, 1992, the Provincial Prosecutor’s Office had not received the resolution. When complainant inquired at the court that day, she observed the judge only then preparing the draft. She later obtained a copy dated October 20, 1992, and questioned the ante-dating.
In her comment, respondent judge claimed she prepared the resolution on October 20, 1992, and ordered its transmittal, but her staff misplaced the records. Upon learning of this on December 1, she immediately prepared and transmitted another resolution. The Investigating Judge recommended dismissal, focusing on the actual transmittal date and finding the falsification charge unsubstantiated.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge is administratively liable for Undue Delay in the Administration of Justice.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent administratively liable for undue delay. The Court disagreed with the Investigating Judge’s recommendation, emphasizing that the charge encompassed not just falsification but also delay. Under Section 5, Rule 112 of the 1985 Rules on Criminal Procedure, the investigating judge must transmit the resolution to the prosecutor within ten days after the preliminary investigation concludes.
The investigation ended on October 5, 1992. The resolution was issued on October 20, 1992, already beyond the ten-day period. Its transmittal on December 2, 1992, constituted a further, more egregious delay. The Court ruled that judges must dispose of court business promptly within reglementary periods. Respondent’s explanation that court staff misplaced the records is not a valid defense. A judge bears the burden of responsibility for ensuring the efficient administration of the court and cannot evade liability by blaming the negligence of subordinates. For this undue delay, the Court imposed a fine of P1,000.00 with a warning for future infractions.