A.M. No. MTJ-99-1225; April 12, 2000
NELFA SAYLO, complainant, vs. JUDGE REMIGIO V. ROJO, MTCC, Branch 5, Bacolod City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Nelfa Saylo filed a verified administrative complaint charging Judge Remigio V. Rojo with Manifest Partiality and Gross Neglect of Duty. The charge stemmed from Civil Case No. 23314, a replevin suit filed by Saylo. She alleged that despite filing the complaint on December 5, 1996, and complying with the requirements under Rule 60 of the Rules of Court, Judge Rojo refused to issue the corresponding writ of replevin for over six months. She further claimed the judge exhibited partiality by also refusing to act on her motion to declare the defendants in default, fearing the subject vehicle could be lost or destroyed while still in the defendants’ possession.
In his comment, Judge Rojo denied any partiality, noting he did not know the parties and had even granted the complainant’s subsequent motion for his inhibition. Regarding the delay, he explained that during a hearing, he orally informed complainant’s counsel of a defect in the complaint and supporting affidavit as per Rule 60, Section 2. He stated he waited for the correction, which was never made, and ultimately denied the issuance of the writ by a written order on June 2, 1997, finding the compliance insufficient.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Remigio V. Rojo is administratively liable for Manifest Partiality and/or Gross Neglect of Duty.

RULING

The Court, agreeing with the Office of the Court Administrator, found the charge of Manifest Partiality unsubstantiated. Administrative charges require convincing proof, and the complainant’s bare allegations of bias, without corroborating evidence, are insufficient. The judge’s actions, including denying a defense motion and later inhibiting himself, did not demonstrate partiality.
However, the Court found Judge Rojo guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. Canon 3, Section 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to dispose of court business promptly and to decide matters within periods fixed by law. While the judge claimed he gave an oral directive about the defective affidavit in January 1997, he only issued a formal order resolving the application for the writ on June 2, 1997—a delay of about five months from the hearing and over eighty days from the submission of a motion for resolution. This undue delay, without a valid justification, constitutes gross inefficiency and neglect. The Court emphasized that failure to resolve incidents within the reglementary period is inexcusable and undermines the speedy administration of justice. Accordingly, a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) was imposed on Judge Rojo with a stern warning.