G.R. No. RTJ-03-1791 ; July 8, 2004
Domingo B. Pantig, complainant, vs. Judge Lamberto A. Daing, Jr., et al., respondents.

FACTS

Complainant Domingo Pantig charged several judges with conduct unbecoming of officers of the court, alleging their actions obstructed the execution of a final and executory 1984 decision in a land registration case. The Supreme Court-affirmed decision awarded Lot 1471 to Pantig and his siblings, ordering Venancio Baltazar to surrender possession and render an accounting of the fishpond’s produce since 1969. Despite the finality of judgment and the issuance of a title, the Baltazars remained in possession.
The specific allegations were summarized by the Office of the Court Administrator. Judge Carmelita Gutierrez-Fruelda was accused of bias for setting aside a prior contempt order against the Baltazars and accepting their previously rejected accounting. Judge Pedro M. Sunga, Jr. was faulted for recalling warrants of arrest against the Baltazars. Judge Pamela Ann A. Maxino was charged for proceeding on a motion lacking a notice of hearing. Finally, Judge Lamberto A. Daing, Jr. was alleged to have failed to resolve a motion to dismiss in an indirect contempt case for almost two years.

ISSUE

Whether the respondent judges are administratively liable for conduct unbecoming of officers of the court based on the complainant’s allegations.

RULING

The Supreme Court dismissed the charges against Judges Gutierrez-Fruelda, Sunga, and Maxino for lack of merit, but found Judge Daing liable for undue delay in rendering an order. The acts of Judges Gutierrez-Fruelda, Sunga, and Maxino were exercises of judicial discretion in the course of adjudicating pending incidents. Administrative liability does not arise from every error in judgment, absent proof of bad faith, malice, or corrupt purpose. The complainant’s mere disagreement with their interlocutory orders, without evidence of fraud or dishonesty, is insufficient to establish administrative culpability.
However, Judge Daing’s failure to resolve the motion to dismiss for nearly two years constitutes undue delay, a less serious offense under the Rules of Court. Judges are mandated to dispose of court business promptly and decide cases within required periods. This duty is paramount to maintaining public faith in the judiciary. Delay in resolving motions, especially from a trial court expected to act with dispatch, undermines this principle. Judge Daing was fined P20,000.00 and warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court emphasized that the administrative case was not an avenue to review the correctness of judicial actions but to hold judges accountable for breaches of their duties.