A.M. No. RTJ-92-789. March 7, 1995. Remedios A. Antonino, complainant, vs. Judge Francisco X. Velez, Regional Trial Court of Makati, Branch 57, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Remedios A. Antonino initially filed an administrative complaint against Judge Francisco X. Velez and another judge. The Court initially dismissed the complaint for lack of merit but admonished Judge Velez to act on motions promptly and decide cases without delay. Antonino filed a motion for reconsideration, introducing a new allegation that she had given Judge Velez P30,000 upon his demand for an immediate ocular inspection. The Court granted the motion for reconsideration, dismissed the charge against the other judge, and referred the charges against Judge Velez to an investigating justice of the Court of Appeals.
The investigating justice, after a thorough investigation, submitted a report. The report found the bribery charge unsubstantiated due to insufficient evidence. However, it found merit in the charges relating to Judge Velez’s judicial conduct in handling Civil Cases Nos. 90-350 and 90-2517. Specifically, the report found that Judge Velez improvidently dismissed these cases while several pending motions remained unresolved and that he subsequently delayed acting on the motions for reconsideration of the dismissal for an unreasonable length of time.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Francisco X. Velez is administratively liable for his actions in relation to Civil Cases Nos. 90-350 and 90-2517.

RULING

Yes, Judge Velez is administratively liable. The Court adopted the investigating justice’s findings but modified the recommended penalty. The Court held that Judge Velez’s precipitate dismissal of the civil cases, despite three pending incidents he had failed to resolve within a reasonable period, constituted an abuse of authority. Furthermore, his failure to resolve the motions for reconsideration of that dismissal for an unreasonable time amounted to inexcusable neglect of duty and inefficiency.
The Court emphasized that such conduct violates the exacting standards required of judges. Canon 3 of the Canons of Judicial Ethics mandates that a judge’s official conduct must be free from the appearance of impropriety. Rule 2.01 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires a judge to behave in a manner that promotes public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary. Judge Velez’s actions, by raising suspicion about his integrity and impartiality, undermined public confidence in the judiciary. Consequently, the Court found the originally recommended fine of P1,000.00 too light and imposed a fine of P2,000.00, with a warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.