A.M. No. RTJ-00-1583. November 15, 2000.
PASTOR O. RICAFRANCA, JR., complainant, vs. JUDGE LILIA C. LOPEZ, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Pastor O. Ricafranca, Jr. was the accused in Criminal Case No. 93-3796 for attempted homicide before Branch 109 of the Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, presided over by respondent Judge Lilia C. Lopez. The case was submitted for decision on February 16, 1994. However, the promulgation of judgment occurred only on September 3, 1999, which was further reset to October 15, 1999, due to the judge’s absence. During the promulgation, only the dispositive portion convicting the complainant was read. When counsel requested a copy of the full decision, respondent stated they would be furnished later as there was “something to add.” Despite follow-ups by the complainant’s wife, a copy was not received until October 26, 1999, after a notice of appeal had already been filed.
In her comment, respondent judge did not specifically deny the allegations of delay. Instead, she explained that during the relevant period, she suffered from a serious ailment requiring multiple hospitalizations, lost both parents, and single-handedly cared for a handicapped sister and a brother with a nervous breakdown. She also cited heavy court duties, including designations as a Special Criminal Court and Family Court. The Office of the Court Administrator found her guilty and recommended a P20,000 fine.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Lilia C. Lopez is administratively liable for gross inefficiency due to the inordinate delay in deciding Criminal Case No. 93-3796.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Supreme Court emphasized that the constitutional mandate and the Code of Judicial Conduct require judges to decide cases within three months from submission. The case was submitted in February 1994 but was decided only in October 1999—a delay of over five years. The Court held that failure to decide within the prescribed period constitutes gross inefficiency, as justice delayed is justice denied. Respondent’s failure to controvert the factual allegations in her initial comment amounted to an admission.
While the Court acknowledged the mitigating circumstances cited by respondent—her grave illness and overwhelming family responsibilities—these factors do not justify the delay but merely mitigate her culpability. The Court also noted that this was not her first administrative offense for delay, having been previously reprimanded in Dizon vs. Lopez. Considering the mitigation, the Court deemed the recommended fine of P20,000 excessive. Instead, a fine of P5,000 was imposed, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The ruling underscores the non-negotiable duty of judges to resolve cases promptly, balancing accountability with compassion for mitigating personal circumstances.