AM RTJ 05 1917; (April, 2009) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M. No. RTJ-05-1917. April 16, 2009.
Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc., represented by Efren A. Madlangsakay, Complainant, vs. Judge William Simon P. Peralta, Presiding Judge, Regional Trial Court, Manila, Branch 50, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Dee C. Chuan & Sons, Inc. (DCCSI) was the plaintiff in an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 02-105031) appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Manila, Branch 50, presided by respondent Judge William Simon P. Peralta. On March 18, 2003, DCCSI filed a “motion to dismiss appeal and for issuance of writ of execution.” Respondent issued an order dated March 21, 2003, requiring appellants to comment. DCCSI subsequently filed three motions to resolve dated August 11, 2003, October 20, 2003, and December 3, 2003. Despite the lapse of more than a year, respondent failed to resolve the pending motions, prompting DCCSI to file an administrative complaint for undue delay. In his comment dated June 4, 2004, respondent merely informed the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that the case had been resolved and attached a copy of his order dated May 5, 2004, which dismissed the appeal and directed issuance of a writ of execution. He did not counter the accusation or offer any justification for the delay.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge William Simon P. Peralta is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving pending motions and for violation of Supreme Court rules and directives.
RULING
Yes, respondent is administratively liable. The Court agreed with the OCA’s findings that respondent failed to resolve several motions for more than a year, in violation of the constitutional mandate to decide cases or matters within 90 days from submission, the Canons of Judicial Ethics, and the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring prompt disposition of court business. This failure constituted gross inefficiency, undermined public faith in the judiciary, and was particularly egregious as the case involved unlawful detainer subject to summary procedure. Furthermore, respondent showed indifference by submitting an inadequate comment without addressing the accusations or explaining the delay.
Respondent was found guilty of two less serious offenses under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court: (1) undue delay in rendering a decision or order, and (2) violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. He was fined ₱15,000. Pursuant to A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC, the administrative case was also treated as a disciplinary proceeding against him as a member of the Bar. He was found to have violated Canons 1, 11, 12, and Rule 12.04 of the Code of Professional Responsibility and was additionally fined ₱5,000. He was sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.