A.M. No. MTJ-98-1174. February 6, 2001.
Sanlakas ng Barangay Julo, San Antonio, Incorporated, represented by its Officers Mrs. Flerida C. Sulit, Mrs. Teresita Castillo and Mr. Roger Ulatan, complainants, vs. Hon. Tiburcio V. Empaynado, Jr., Presiding Judge, MTC, San Antonio, Nueva Ecija, respondent.

FACTS

Complainants, representing Sanlakas, filed two criminal cases for malicious mischief against Felicitas Bascara before respondent judge’s court. After weeks of inaction, they were informed the court could not proceed as the accused was abroad. Verification with immigration authorities revealed no record of Bascara leaving the country. Complainants filed a motion to set the case for hearing, which remained unacted upon. They alleged discrimination, noting a separate case filed by Bascara against them was acted upon with dispatch. A member also claimed the judge refused assistance in a grave threats case, allegedly stating he could do nothing as the suspect was wealthy and would just post bail.
Respondent judge denied the allegations. He justified the delay by explaining he had to verify the authenticity of documents submitted by Sanlakas, as his review revealed serious irregularities. He discovered that the notary public who attested to Sanlakas’s articles of incorporation was non-existent, the SEC certificate of registration appeared spurious with a filing date on a Sunday, and the SEC registration number belonged to a different entity. He also noted that the complainant’s representative, Roger Ulatan, faced criminal charges for perjury and falsification.

ISSUE

Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for malicious delay in the administration of justice and for the alleged discriminatory handling of cases.

RULING

The Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable for undue delay, but not for discrimination or for the refusal to act on the grave threats complaint. The legal logic is grounded on the judge’s mandatory duty to resolve matters promptly. While a judge may conduct a preliminary evaluation of a complaint’s sufficiency, this must be done with reasonable dispatch. The Court found that respondent judge’s investigation into Sanlakas’s legitimacy, while ultimately revealing fraud, took an unreasonable amount of time. He filed the cases in April 1996 but only issued an order directing the Provincial Prosecutor for clarifications in November 1996, with no further action taken for an extended period. This constituted undue delay, a less serious charge under the Rules of Court. The claim of discrimination was not substantiated. Regarding the grave threats complaint, the judge correctly applied the Rule on Summary Procedure and the Local Government Code, which require barangay conciliation prior to judicial action and restrict immediate arrest, thus finding no dereliction. Considering respondent had already retired, the Court imposed a fine of P2,000.00 to be deducted from withheld retirement benefits.