G.R. No.: A.M. No. RTJ-00-1606; June 20, 2001
Case Parties: PATRIA MAQUIRAN, complainant, vs. JUDGE LILIA C. LOPEZ, Regional Trial Court, Branch 109, Pasay City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Patria Maquiran filed an administrative complaint for gross negligence against Judge Lilia C. Lopez. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s failure to decide Civil Case No. 7548, a suit for damages arising from the death of complainant’s husband, which was filed on August 31, 1990, assigned to respondent judge, and submitted for decision in August 1994. By March 25, 1996, complainant’s counsel moved for resolution, but as of the complaint’s filing on September 16, 1999, no decision had been rendered. In her comment dated January 10, 2000, respondent judge claimed she had finally decided the case and furnished copies to the parties. She explained the nearly five-year delay was due to: her hospitalization and scheduled operation for a uterine mass (cancelled due to extremely high blood pressure); the deaths of her parents; her responsibility to care for a retardate sister and a brother suffering a nervous breakdown; additional administrative duties as Executive Judge; and continuous hearings due to her court’s designation as a Special Criminal Court. The Office of the Court Administrator found her administratively liable and recommended a fine of P4,000.00. This was not respondent’s first administrative sanction for delay; she had been reprimanded in Dizon v. Lopez (1997) and fined P5,000.00 in Ricafranca, Jr. v. Lopez (2000) for similar failures, offering substantially the same excuses of health and family problems.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Lilia C. Lopez is administratively liable for gross inefficiency due to her failure to decide Civil Case No. 7548 within the constitutionally mandated period.

RULING

Yes, respondent Judge Lilia C. Lopez is administratively liable. The Court found the OCA’s report well-taken except as to the recommended penalty. Under Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the Constitution and Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges must decide cases within three months. Failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency, as justice delayed is justice denied, undermining public faith in the judiciary. The Court rejected respondent’s excuses as unsatisfactory. While compassionate to her health and family predicaments, the Court emphasized compassion has limits. The delay of over five years was inexcusable; she could have requested an extension of time or gone on sick leave. Her heavy caseload and additional duties as Executive Judge and Special Criminal Court judge did not justify the failure, as she could have declined or asked to be relieved of such designations. Notably, this was a repeated offense, having been sanctioned twice before for identical delays and excuses. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) with a warning that repetition would be dealt with more severely.