AM RTJ 11 2281; (September, 2019) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-11-2281 (Formerly OCA IPI- 10-3372-RTJ) September 16, 2019
Atty. Marsha B. Esturas, Complainant, vs. Judge Agapito S. Lu, Regional Trial Court, Branch 88, Cavite City, Respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Marsha B. Esturas, counsel for the plaintiffs in Civil Case No. N-8004 pending before respondent Judge Agapito S. Lu’s court, filed an administrative complaint charging the judge with Conduct Unbecoming a Judge and Delay in the Disposition of a Case. The complaint alleged undue delay in resolving a “Motion to Serve Summons by Publication” filed on June 10, 2009, which remained unresolved for almost seven months, prompting the filing of a “Motion to Resolve Immediately” on October 26, 2009. In his defense, respondent judge claimed the delay was due to complainant’s personal request to his Branch Clerk of Court, Atty. Jordan J. Teaño, to defer action on pending motions because she was negotiating a possible amicable settlement with a lawyer for would-be intervenors. Respondent asserted that Atty. Teaño kept the case records during this period, only submitting them on April 16, 2010, after being informed the negotiations failed, at which point he immediately resolved the motion. Respondent also filed a counter-complaint seeking complainant’s disbarment for alleged violations of the Code of Professional Responsibility.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Agapito S. Lu is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving a pending motion.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court found respondent guilty of undue delay in rendering an order. The Constitution and judicial canons mandate judges to resolve motions and incidents within 90 days and to dispose of court business promptly. Respondent’s excuses—that the delay was due to complainant’s verbal request for deferment and his Branch Clerk’s failure to forward the case records—were unpersuasive. Judges cannot evade responsibility by blaming court staff, as court management is ultimately their duty. Furthermore, the alleged verbal request for deferment should have been placed on record through a written order, but none was issued. The hearing revealed lapses in court management, as no action was taken on the motion set for hearing on November 3, 2009. The Court imposed a fine of Eleven Thousand Pesos (P11,000.00) to be deducted from respondent’s retirement benefits. The counter-complaint for disbarment against complainant was dismissed for lack of merit.