G.R. No. RTJ-05-1932. April 2, 2007
Humberto C. Lim, Jr., for and in behalf of Lumot Anlap Jalandoni, Complainant, vs. Judge Demosthenes L. Magallanes and Clerk of Court Gia Independencia L. Arinday, Regional Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City, Respondents.

FACTS

Complainant, a defendant in Civil Case No. 97-9680, filed an administrative complaint against Judge Demosthenes Magallanes and Clerk of Court Atty. Gia Arinday. The complaint alleged undue delay, as the civil case remained unresolved for over five years from submission for decision. It also cited the clerk of court’s failure to act on a written request for copies of court pleadings. Regarding the judge, an additional incident was noted where he was seen conversing with opposing counsels before a hearing in related criminal cases, though the complainant later moved to withdraw this part of the complaint after the judge inhibited himself.
The Office of the Court Administrator required both respondents to comment. Judge Magallanes eventually complied, citing health issues and his stenographer’s illness as reasons for the delay, and claimed the parties understood his predicament. Clerk of Court Arinday failed to submit any comment despite repeated directives. The complainant later filed a motion to withdraw the entire complaint, expressing satisfaction with the judge’s eventual decision and impartiality, and clearing the clerk of court after a personal investigation.

ISSUE

Whether respondents Judge Demosthenes Magallanes and Clerk of Court Gia Arinday are administratively liable.

RULING

Yes, both respondents are administratively liable. The Supreme Court denied the motion to withdraw, emphasizing that administrative cases involve the Court’s interest in upholding judicial standards and cannot be frustrated by private arrangements. For Judge Magallanes, his admission of failing to decide the case within the constitutionally mandated period constitutes gross inefficiency and undue delay, a less serious charge under Rule 140. His explanations regarding health and staff absence are mitigating but not exculpatory, as he failed to formally request an extension from the Court. The delay of over five years warranted the maximum fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000).
For Clerk of Court Arinday, her continued defiance in failing to submit her comment despite lawful orders from the OCA constituted insubordination and warranted disciplinary action. She was reprimanded and sternly warned that a repetition would be dealt with more severely. The Court held that the eventual withdrawal of the complaint did not absolve the respondents, as the administrative liability arose from their breach of official duties and norms of conduct essential to the prompt administration of justice.