A.M. No. RTJ-92-813. January 30, 1995. RAMON ABAD, complainant, vs. JUDGE ANTONIO BELEN, respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Atty. Ramon Abad charged respondent Judge Antonio D. Belen of the Regional Trial Court of Lingayen, Pangasinan, with gross dereliction of duty. The charge stemmed from the judge’s failure to render a decision in Special Proceeding No. 2648, a case submitted for decision in 1984, for a period of almost seven years until a decision was finally issued on December 16, 1991. The complainant further alleged that the delay was due to collusion between the respondent judge and a party-opponent in the case. The Supreme Court referred the matter to the Court of Appeals for investigation, with Associate Justice Eduardo G. Montenegro as the investigating justice.
The investigation established that the charge of collusion was not substantiated by evidence. Instead, respondent judge admitted in his affidavit that he “completely forgot about the case,” describing it as “an administrative lapse, although a serious one.” This failure resulted in his submission of false certificates of service stating he had no pending cases for decision. The investigating justice noted several mitigating circumstances, including the respondent’s long and previously unblemished record of 25 years in government service, his heavy workload at the time which included presiding over multiple branches, his advanced age and health condition, and his expressed contrition and promise of diligence.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Antonio D. Belen is administratively liable for his failure to decide a case within the reglementary period and for subsequently submitting false certificates of service.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court adopted the findings of the investigating justice, confirming that the charge of deliberate collusion to delay the case was not proven by substantial evidence. Mere suspicion of partiality is insufficient; adequate evidence is required to sustain such a charge. However, the respondent unquestionably failed in his duty to decide the case within the mandatory 90-day period under the law. His explanation that he forgot the case due to his workload and age does not excuse the violation, particularly the submission of false certificates of service, which is a serious matter. Nonetheless, the Court considered the mitigating circumstances appreciated in the investigation report, including his candor, long service, heavy workload, and absence of any prior administrative case or issue concerning his integrity. Consequently, instead of the recommended heavier penalty, the Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00), deductible from his accumulated leave credits, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.