AM RTJ 07 2094; (December, 2007) (Digest)
G.R. No. A.M.-RTJ-07-2094 December 10, 2007
Jimmy Uy vs. Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr.
FACTS
Complainant Jimmy Uy filed a verified complaint against Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr. of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 20, Cagayan de Oro City, for undue delay in resolving Civil Case No. 2002-241, a case for judicial abatement of nuisance. The complaint alleged significant postponements and a lack of progress in the proceedings over an extended period.
In his comment, respondent judge sought to justify the delay by stating he had no control over the events causing the postponements and shifted blame to the plaintiff for acquiescing to the defendant’s motions. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the records and found that the judge had been excessively liberal in granting postponements, often at the instance of the parties or the court itself, without taking decisive control to prevent unreasonable continuances.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Gregorio D. Pantanosas, Jr. is administratively liable for undue delay in the disposition of a case under his sala.
RULING
Yes, the Supreme Court found respondent judge administratively liable for gross inefficiency. The Court adopted the findings and recommendation of the OCA, which emphasized that a judge must always remain in full control of court proceedings and adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements. The legal logic is grounded in the Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Rule 1.02, which mandates that a judge should administer justice without delay, and Rule 3.05, which requires a judge to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within required periods.
The Court rejected the judge’s defense of having no control over postponements. The discretion to grant or deny continuances must be exercised wisely to serve the ends of justice and fairness, not merely the convenience of the parties. Lengthy, uncontrolled postponements undermine public faith in the judiciary by creating the impression that justice grinds slowly. The complainant’s failure to object to the delays did not extenuate the judge’s liability, as the primary duty to ensure prompt disposition rests squarely on the judge. Since respondent judge had already been considered resigned from the judiciary due to his filing of a certificate of candidacy, the Court imposed a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) with a stern warning against repetition.