A.M. No. RTJ-95-1317. June 27, 1995. DALMACIO CELINO, complainant, vs. JUDGE ZEUS C. ABROGAR, Regional Trial Court of Makati (Branch 150), respondent.
FACTS

Complainant Dalmacio Celino filed an administrative complaint against Judge Zeus C. Abrogar for the judge’s failure to render a decision in Civil Case No. 88-2042, an action for reconveyance and damages, within the 90-day period mandated by the Constitution. The case was submitted for decision on July 17, 1990, but a decision was promulgated only on March 18, 1992, a delay of approximately one year and eight months. Complainant also alleged the decision was contrary to the evidence.
In his comment, respondent judge admitted the delay but claimed it was not intentional. He explained that after submission, he instructed his branch clerk to prepare the complete records, but the transcripts of stenographic notes were allegedly still incomplete. He further stated he lost track of the case due to his court’s volume of work and later discovered the physical records were misplaced or misfiled among other case files in his crowded sala. The records were allegedly found only in March 1992 by accident, after which he immediately decided the case.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Zeus C. Abrogar is administratively liable for the undue delay in rendering a decision.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court found his excuses for the delay unacceptable. The constitutional 90-day period for deciding cases is mandatory. The judge’s claim of waiting for the completion of the transcript of stenographic notes is not a valid justification. Judges are not permitted to delay decisions on this ground; they are expected to take down notes during hearings to aid them in timely decision-making.
More critically, the Court held that the alleged mismanagement of court records, including their being lost or misfiled for over a year, demonstrates a severe lack of control and efficiency in court administration. Proper and efficient court management is the personal responsibility of the judge. A judge cannot take refuge behind the inefficiency of court staff. The circumstances underscored respondent judge’s failure to exercise due diligence in securing case records and monitoring the court’s docket to ensure the prompt disposition of cases.
Accordingly, the Court found Judge Abrogar guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision. He was ordered to pay a fine of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00), with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely.