AM RTJ 96 1367; (February, 1998) (Digest)
G.R. No. RTJ-96-1367 February 6, 1998
Dante J. Perez vs. Judge Guillermo R. Andaya
FACTS
The case originated from a letter-complaint filed by Dante J. Perez against respondent Judge Guillermo R. Andaya of the Regional Trial Court of Lucena City, Branch 53. The complaint alleged unreasonable delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 91-126, a collection of sum of money case filed on December 21, 1991. The case was raffled to Judge Andaya’s branch. The complaint highlighted that from the filing of the complaint until the filing of the administrative complaint on December 6, 1995, no resolution was made on a pending motion to dismiss filed by the defendant on April 20, 1992, despite an opposition and a reply being filed. Judge Andaya, in his comment, attributed the delay to his heavy caseload as he was also presiding over Branch 54 and later designated to hear heinous crimes. He also stated he deferred action on two pending motions in the case after the administrative complaint was filed, awaiting advice from the Supreme Court or a sign from the complainant. Subsequently, Judge Andaya inhibited himself from the case, which was then re-raffled to another judge, leading complainant Perez to withdraw his complaint. The case was referred to an investigating justice.
ISSUE
Whether respondent Judge Guillermo R. Andaya should be held administratively liable for neglect of duty due to the unreasonable delay in the disposition of motions and proceedings in Civil Case No. 91-126.
RULING
Yes, respondent Judge Guillermo R. Andaya is administratively liable for neglect of duty. The Court adopted the recommendation of the investigating justice. It was found that Judge Andaya failed to act on a pending motion to dismiss for approximately four years, from 1992 until the administrative complaint in 1995, and subsequently deferred action on pending motions due to the complaint itself. The Court held that judges must strive for the speedy disposition of cases and avoid delays. Judge Andaya’s reasons, such as heavy caseload and additional designations, were not acceptable excuses for the failure to resolve pending matters within a reasonable time. Accordingly, the Court REPRIMANDED Judge Andaya for neglect of duty with a WARNING that a repetition of similar acts would be dealt with more severely.