A.M. No. RTJ-02-1710; June 17, 2003
Evangelina C. Samson, Complainant, vs. Judge Jules A. Mejia, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Evangelina C. Samson was the defendant in Civil Case No. A-2274 for annulment of contracts pending before respondent Judge Jules Mejia’s court. The case was deemed submitted for decision on April 28, 2000. After four months of inaction, complainant filed three motions for resolution and personally pleaded with the judge for a disposition. Respondent ignored her plea and suggested she settle with the plaintiffs, leading complainant to believe he was purposely withholding the decision to pressure her into a compromise.
In his comment, respondent admitted the delay but denied any improper motive. He offered several explanations: he claimed the case was only submitted for decision in September 2000 due to procedural orders; he was grieving the untimely death of his daughter; he was designated as an acting presiding judge in another court; and he had to attend to a letter-request from a plaintiff. He prayed for the Court’s understanding.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jules A. Mejia is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision.

RULING

Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Constitution and judicial ethics mandate that lower court judges decide cases within three months from submission. Applying Administrative Circular No. 28, the subject case was submitted for decision on April 28, 2000, yet the decision was rendered only on December 11, 2001—a delay exceeding one year and seven months. Even accepting respondent’s alternative timeline (September 2000), the delay remains substantial and unjustified.
The Court found respondent’s proffered excuses lacking in merit. While sympathetic to his bereavement, such a circumstance is merely mitigating and does not absolve liability; he should have requested a formal extension or taken a leave. His additional duties in another court and his attention to a party’s letter-request are not valid justifications for failing to comply with the mandatory period. The Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of court business promptly. Delay violates the litigant’s right to a speedy disposition and erodes public faith in the judiciary.
Undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court imposed a fine of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00) upon respondent Judge Jules A. Mejia.