A.M. No. RTJ-00-1557. April 25, 2002. ATTY. LETICIA E. ALA, complainant, vs. JUDGE LEOCADIO H. RAMOS, JR., Regional Trial Court of Burauen, Leyte, Branch 15, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Atty. Leticia E. Ala, counsel for the defendant in a civil case for attorney’s fees, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. The complaint alleged two primary grounds: undue delay in resolving pending incidents and loss of case records. Atty. Ala averred that Judge Ramos, while acting presiding judge of RTC Tacloban City, Branch 8, declared several pending motions submitted for resolution on December 8, 1998, but failed to resolve them before his reassignment in April/May 1999. Furthermore, she claimed the entire records of the case went missing while under Judge Ramos’s responsibility, citing a letter she sent to him in September 1999 requesting the records’ return for a scheduled hearing, to which he never replied.
The complaint also implicated Atty. Irene Pontejos-Cordeta, the Branch Clerk of Court, for alleged inefficiency in calendar management. Atty. Ala recounted an instance where she traveled from Manila for a hearing only to find the motion not calendared and Atty. Cordeta absent from the office. It was during a subsequent meeting initiated by Atty. Cordeta with the Executive Judge that the loss of the records was confirmed. Judge Ramos, in his comment, admitted the delay, attributing it to heavy workload and multiple designations, and denied responsibility for the lost records, stating he left them with Branch 8. Atty. Cordeta defended her actions, explaining that motions were not included in the calendar as the requested dates did not conform to the court’s designated motion days and schedule set by the acting presiding judge.

ISSUE

Whether Judge Leocadio H. Ramos, Jr. is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving pending motions and for failure to properly safeguard court records.

RULING

Yes, Judge Ramos is administratively liable. The Supreme Court found him guilty of gross inefficiency for failing to resolve the pending incidents within the mandatory 90-day period prescribed by the Constitution and the Code of Judicial Conduct. His excuses of heavy workload and multiple assignments were deemed unacceptable, as judges are mandated to organize their court and manage their caseload to ensure the prompt disposition of cases. The delay, which lasted for several months until his transfer, constituted a violation of the parties’ right to a speedy disposition of their case.
Regarding the lost records, the Court held Judge Ramos administratively accountable. As the presiding judge at the time, he bore the ultimate responsibility for the custody and integrity of court records. His claim that he left the records with Branch 8 did not absolve him; his failure to ensure their proper turnover or to take definitive action upon learning they were missing demonstrated negligence in the performance of his administrative duties. The Court emphasized that a judge’s responsibility over case records is a fundamental duty, and loss thereof undermines the administration of justice. Consequently, Judge Ramos was fined Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) for gross inefficiency, with a stern warning. The charges against Atty. Cordeta were dismissed for lack of merit.