A.M. No. RTJ-03-1761; April 30, 2003
JOSE B. CUSTODIO, complainant, vs. JUDGE JESUS V. QUITAIN, Regional Trial Court, Davao City, Branch 15, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Jose B. Custodio, the accused in Criminal Case No. 37921-96 for rape, filed an administrative complaint charging Judge Jesus V. Quitain with undue delay in resolving incidents related to his case. Custodio alleged that after filing a final motion for compulsory inhibition on January 28, 1999, which was denied by the respondent judge on June 11, 1999, he subsequently filed a motion for reconsideration on July 19, 1999. Despite the judge issuing orders on November 19, 1999, and January 28, 2000, declaring the motion for reconsideration submitted for resolution, no action was taken for an extended period. This prompted Custodio to file a petition for mandamus with the Court of Appeals to compel resolution.
In his comment, Judge Quitain denied malicious delay. He explained that the final motion for inhibition was resolved within 52 days after the last pleading was filed. He attributed the procedural timeline to the various motions and extensions sought by both the prosecution and the defense, which he claimed were necessary for a complete resolution of the issues presented.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Jesus V. Quitain is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving a pending motion for reconsideration.

RULING

Yes, the respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court of Appeals, in its Decision dated October 15, 2001, granted Custodio’s petition for mandamus, finding that the motion for reconsideration of the order denying inhibition had been submitted for resolution as early as July 23, 1999, yet remained unresolved for a prolonged period in violation of the duty to decide promptly. While the Supreme Court clarified that the specific 30-day period under Section 4, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court applies to motions for reconsideration of judgments or final orders, and not to interlocutory orders like one denying a motion for inhibition, this does not excuse undue delay.
Judges are constitutionally mandated to decide cases and matters within three months from submission. All motions and incidents should be resolved with dispatch within this 90-day framework to uphold the public’s trust in the judiciary. The respondent’s failure to resolve the motion for reconsideration for an unreasonable length of time, despite it being declared submitted for resolution, constitutes undue delay. This is a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. Accordingly, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended penalty and fined Judge Quitain P10,000, with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.