A.M. No. MTJ-933-884 June 23, 1995
JULIUS N. RABOCA, complainant, vs. JUDGE GREGORIO D. PANTANOSAS, JR., MTCC, BRANCH 2, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Julius N. Raboca, counsel for the plaintiffs in an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 12980), filed an administrative complaint charging respondent Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr., with gross inefficiency, ignorance of the law, and malicious delay. The allegations included that the judge erroneously granted a motion for a bill of particulars instead of requiring an answer under the Rules on Summary Procedure, causing a 64-day delay for the defendants to answer. Further, the judge unnecessarily set the case for clarificatory hearings and, most critically, decided the case only on June 7, 1993, approximately fifteen months after it was submitted for decision on February 15, 1992.
In his comment, respondent judge denied the charges, attributing procedural delays to the motions filed by both parties and the plaintiffs’ own participation in the hearings. For the delay in rendering judgment, he initially cited his additional duties as an officer of the Municipal Judges League and later claimed his defective eyesight hampered his work.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr., is administratively liable for undue delay in deciding a case under the Rules on Summary Procedure.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administrarily liable for undue delay. The Supreme Court adopted the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), which held that most of the complainant’s charges pertained to judicial actions not proper for administrative review, except for the clear failure to decide the case seasonably. The Constitution and the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure mandate that cases be decided within specific periods: generally three months from submission for decision, and within thirty days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers for summary procedure cases. Here, the ejectment case was submitted for decision on February 14, 1992, but the decision was rendered only on May 21, 1993, a delay of about fifteen months.
The Court rejected the judge’s excuses. His extrajudicial activities as a league officer must be regulated to avoid impairing judicial duties under Canon 5 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. His claim of failing eyesight was deemed an afterthought, as the eye operation occurred ten months after the case was submitted and did not justify the entire period of delay. While eliciting some sympathy, it did not absolve his nonfeasance. Consequently, the Court fined him a reduced amount of P1,000.00 and cautioned him against repetition.