A.M. No. MTJ-94-902. March 27, 1995. EMETERIO L. ASINAS, JR., complainant, vs. JUDGE ERNESTO T. TRINIDAD, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 63, Makati, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Emeterio L. Asinas, Jr., the complaining witness in Criminal Cases Nos. 130338 and 130339 for unjust vexation and malicious mischief, charged respondent Judge Ernesto T. Trinidad with inefficiency and for knowingly rendering an unjust judgment. The cases, governed by the Rules on Summary Procedure, took approximately 5 1/2 years from filing to disposition. Complainant specifically alleged that after the cases were submitted for decision on October 19, 1991, the judgment of acquittal was rendered only on July 22, 1993, a delay of 1 year and 7 months. Complainant also assailed a portion of the decision expressing doubt about his uncorroborated testimony on the destruction of his camera, asserting it was in fact corroborated by a prosecution witness.
In his defense, respondent judge attributed the delays in the proceedings to the parties, citing a pending petition for certiorari with the Court of Appeals and ongoing labor dispute negotiations. He claimed complainant himself requested a deferment of the resolution after the cases were submitted. Regarding the judgment, respondent contended the statement was part of his evaluation of evidence and that the acquittal was based on the prosecution’s failure to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for (1) unjustifiable delay in rendering judgment, and (2) knowingly rendering an unjust judgment.

RULING

The Court found respondent judge liable for unjustifiable delay but dismissed the charge of rendering an unjust judgment. On the first charge, the Court emphasized that the cases fell under the Rules on Summary Procedure, where Section 17 mandates promulgation of judgment not later than thirty (30) days after the termination of trial. The trial ended on December 4, 1991, making the deadline January 3, 1992. The decision was promulgated on August 2, 1993, a delay of one year and seven months. While initial delays in the proceedings were attributable to the parties’ actions, the delay in rendering the decision after submission was solely the judge’s responsibility. Failure to decide within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and is not excusable.
On the second charge, the Court agreed with the findings of the Investigating Judge and the Deputy Court Administrator that the charge was unsubstantiated. The assailed statement in the decision pertained to the judge’s assessment of witness credibility and the weight of evidence, which is within his judicial discretion. There was no evidence presented to show that the judgment was rendered with malice, bad faith, or corruption. An error of judgment, absent proof of any corrupt motive, is not a ground for administrative liability.
Accordingly, the Court imposed a FINE of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) on respondent judge for unjustifiable delay, with a warning. The charge of knowingly rendering an unjust judgment was dismissed for lack of merit.