AM RTJ 04 1890; (October, 2005) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-04-1890. October 11, 2005. PROSECUTOR ROBERT M. VISBAL, Complainant, vs. JUDGE ROGELIO C. SESCON, Regional Trial Court, Branch 9, Tacloban City, Respondent.
FACTS
Provincial Prosecutor Robert M. Visbal filed an administrative complaint against Judge Rogelio C. Sescon for undue delay in rendering a decision in an appealed unlawful detainer case, Civil Case No. 2002-11-235. The complainant alleged that the case was submitted for resolution on January 9, 2003, or at the latest on March 5, 2003, after the grant of a final extension to file a memorandum. The decision was rendered only on September 5, 2003, constituting a delay of at least 185 days beyond the 90-day constitutional period. This was the second similar complaint against the respondent, who had previously been fined and sternly warned.
In his defense, Judge Sescon attributed the delay to the health problems and subsequent maternity leave of the clerk-in-charge of civil cases, Delia Tayabas, who failed to submit the case records to him promptly. He also filed a counter-complaint against Prosecutor Visbal, accusing him of being a “legal gadfly” who files malicious administrative cases to extort favors and to intimidate the judge regarding cases pending before his sala.
ISSUE
Whether Judge Rogelio C. Sescon is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision.
RULING
Yes, Judge Sescon is guilty of gross inefficiency. The Supreme Court emphasized the constitutional mandate and judicial canons requiring judges to decide cases within 90 days. Delay in the administration of justice, regardless of the length, deprives litigants of their right to a speedy disposition and erodes public faith in the judiciary. The Court found the respondent’s explanation unsatisfactory. The inefficiency of court personnel is not a valid defense, as a judge has the responsibility to adopt a system of record management and to supervise court personnel to ensure the prompt dispatch of business. The judge bears the ultimate responsibility for ensuring cases are decided within the reglementary period.
Considering this was a second offense, the Court imposed a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The counter-complaint against Prosecutor Visbal was referred to the Secretary of Justice, as the Supreme Court’s administrative jurisdiction does not extend to public prosecutors who are under the supervision of the Department of Justice.