G.R. No. RTJ-03-1745. August 20, 2003.
UNITRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK, Complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES, JR., and MA. EDITHA CAUNAN, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Unitrust Development Bank (UDB) filed an administrative complaint against Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., for undue delay in resolving two matters. First, in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050, UDB filed a motion to dismiss on August 12, 1998. The motion was deemed submitted for resolution on September 1, 1998, after the filing of the last pleading. Despite three urgent motions for resolution filed by UDB, the judge resolved the motion only on January 18, 2000, and the order was mailed on March 23, 2000. Second, in LRC Case No. LP-98-0350, UDB filed an ex-parte petition for a writ of possession in December 1998. The judge set the petition for initial hearing only on September 14, 1999, over eight months later.
The respondent judge, in his comment, admitted the delay in the civil case but attributed it to his legal researcher, Laureana Buenaventura, who allegedly misplaced the case records and later abandoned her office. He claimed the records were only found after a new officer-in-charge conducted an inventory. Regarding the land registration case, he asserted that the delay in setting the hearing was UDB’s fault for not promptly setting it, and that he issued the writ two months after the hearing.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jose F. Caoibes, Jr., is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving judicial matters.

RULING

Yes, the judge is administratively liable. The Court found clear undue delay in resolving the motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050. Under Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, lower courts have 90 days to resolve matters from their submission. The motion was submitted on September 1, 1998, making it due for resolution by November 30, 1998. The resolution on January 18, 2000, was a clear violation of this mandatory period. The judge’s excuse of misplaced records is unacceptable. A judge has the duty to organize and supervise court personnel to ensure prompt dispatch of business under Rule 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The negligence of subordinates is ultimately the judge’s responsibility for failing to adopt an efficient recording system. The Court, however, exonerated the judge concerning the land registration case, as the delay in setting the hearing was attributable to UDB’s own inaction. Considering the infraction as a less serious charge of undue delay, and noting the judge’s previously unblemished record, the Court modified the OCA’s recommendation and imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00).