G.R. No. RTJ-11-2275. March 08, 2016
Spouses Cesar and Thelma Sustento, Complainants, vs. Judge Frisco T. Lilagan, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainants Spouses Cesar and Thelma Sustento were defendants in an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 2008-05-CV-08) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, Tacloban City, and plaintiffs in a specific performance and damages case (Civil Case No. 2005-03-37) before the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 6, Tacloban City. In the unlawful detainer case, they raised as an affirmative defense the plaintiff’s alleged violation of the non-forum-shopping rule for failing to disclose the pending specific performance case. The MTCC judge, Sylvia Z. Pocpoc-Lamoste, issued an order dated September 9, 2008, ruling that the plaintiff had no duty to disclose the pending case. The complainants’ motion for reconsideration was denied on November 24, 2008.
On January 26, 2009, complainants filed a Petition for Review on Certiorari before the RTC, Branch 34, Tacloban City, presided by respondent Judge Frisco T. Lilagan, seeking to annul the MTCC orders. Respondent judge directed the private respondents to file their comment on March 3, 2009, which was filed on March 31, 2009, followed by complainants’ rejoinder. After almost six months, and only after complainants filed a motion for early resolution on September 8, 2009, respondent judge issued an order on September 15, 2009, dismissing the petition. Complainants filed a motion for reconsideration, and after the parties submitted their respective pleadings, respondent judge issued an order on December 10, 2009, deeming the motion submitted for resolution. However, as of the filing of the administrative complaint on July 5, 2010, respondent judge had not resolved the motion for reconsideration.
Complainants charged respondent judge with undue delay in resolving the petition for certiorari and the motion for reconsideration, violating the 90-day period prescribed by Administrative Circular No. 38-98 and Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution. They later withdrew their complaint via motion dated October 7, 2010, but the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) proceeded with the investigation.
In his comment, respondent judge denied liability, arguing that the petition for certiorari was a prohibited pleading against an interlocutory order, and thus he was not obliged to rule on it. He cited several reasons for the delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration: increasing workload, a three-month suspension from a prior administrative case, failure of his clerk to remind him, and the Christmas holidays. He pleaded for leniency.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Frisco T. Lilagan is guilty of undue delay in rendering an order for failing to resolve complainants’ motion for reconsideration within the prescribed period.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of gross inefficiency due to undue delay. The Court adopted the findings of the OCA. While the allegation of bias in favor of MTCC Judge Pocpoc-Lamoste was untenable for lack of proof, the delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration constituted a violation of the constitutional and reglementary periods for case disposition. Judges are mandated to decide cases and resolve motions within 90 days from submission, as per Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent judge’s justifications—heavy caseload, suspension, staff oversight, and holidays—were insufficient. Heavy workload does not excuse delay; a judge must request an extension from the Court. His claim that the petition was a prohibited pleading did not absolve him from the duty to resolve the motion promptly.
Respondent judge had a record of prior administrative infractions, including fines and reprimands for similar offenses. Considering his repeated violations, the Court imposed a fine of ₱45,000.00, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future would be dealt with more severely. The OCA’s recommended penalty of six months’ suspension was modified to a fine.