A.M. No. RTJ-00-1590. January 15, 2002. Gina B. Ang, complainant, vs. Judge Enrique B. Asis, Regional Trial Court, Branch 16, Naval, Biliran, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Gina B. Ang filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Enrique B. Asis for Bribery, Extortion, and Violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act. The charges stemmed from Election Case No. 98-01, an election protest filed by Ang. She alleged that the judge, through her lawyers, intimated he would decide in her favor for a monetary consideration, resulting in her father delivering P140,000.00. She further claimed the judge requested assistance in promoting his brother at the Bureau of Customs and in securing his son’s training at the Philippine Heart Center, to which her family acceded. Ang also stated she provided P4,000.00 for the son’s training after a phone call from the judge. The judge later decided the election protest against Ang.
Judge Asis vehemently denied all allegations. He asserted his brother’s promotion was through other channels and his son’s application was independent, with the P4,000.00 check being unsolicited. He attributed the complaint to Ang’s bitterness over losing her case and the dismissal of her appeal for non-payment of docket fees.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Enrique B. Asis is administratively liable for the charges of bribery and extortion, and for undue delay in resolving the election protest.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges for bribery and extortion for lack of merit but found Judge Asis administratively liable for undue delay and imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with a reprimand. The investigating Justice found the evidence for corruption insufficient, as Ang’s allegations were largely based on hearsay from her lawyers, who were not presented to corroborate her claims. The promotion of the judge’s brother and the assistance for his son were not conclusively proven to have been solicited by the judge himself, and the provided check did not establish a direct solicitation.
However, the Court found the judge incompetent for failing to decide the election protest with dispatch. Judicial records confirmed the case was submitted for decision in August 1998 but was only decided in March 2000, far beyond the 30-day period mandated for election cases. The judge offered no satisfactory explanation for this inordinate delay. The Court emphasized that judges must dispose of court business promptly, especially election cases which involve public interest. The delay constituted a violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct and warranted administrative sanction to uphold public confidence in the judiciary.