A.M. No. RTJ-99-1454; March 2, 2000
ATTY. NESCITO C. HILARIO, complainant, vs. Judge CRISANTO C. CONCEPCION, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Nescito C. Hilario charged Executive Judge Crisanto C. Concepcion of the RTC of Malolos, Bulacan, with inefficiency and grave abuse of discretion. The complaint stemmed from Judge Concepcion’s handling of a motion for inhibition filed against Judge Quilantang of the MTC of Obando, Bulacan, in a criminal case for perjury. Judge Quilantang voluntarily inhibited himself on March 3, 1997, and forwarded the resolution to Judge Concepcion for the designation of a new judge. Atty. Hilario alleged that from March to September 1997, he made repeated follow-ups with Judge Concepcion’s branch clerk of court but received only assurances that the matter was being worked on, with no actual action taken.
On September 8, 1997, Atty. Hilario was finally shown a copy of Judge Concepcion’s order dated July 4, 1997, which had not been released earlier. In this order, Judge Concepcion denied Judge Quilantang’s voluntary inhibition, ruling that the stated ground was not among those allowed under Rule 137 of the Rules of Court, and directed Judge Quilantang to continue hearing the case. Judge Concepcion, in his comment, denied inefficiency, attributing the delay to the resolution not reaching his desk promptly and to the complainant’s failure to follow up with him directly. He also justified his order by stating that the complainant lacked personality to seek inhibition.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Crisanto C. Concepcion is administratively liable for gross inefficiency and for issuing an order denying a voluntary inhibition without legal basis.

RULING

Yes, Judge Concepcion is administratively liable for gross inefficiency. The Court found his explanation for the delay unconvincing. As the Executive Judge, he had the duty to act promptly on matters submitted for his resolution. The period from March 3, 1997, when the inhibition was forwarded, to July 4, 1997, when he finally issued his order, constituted an unreasonable delay of four months in performing a simple administrative task. This delay violated the constitutional mandate for speedy disposition of cases and Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to dispose of court business promptly. The Court emphasized that justice delayed is justice denied, and such inefficiency undermines public faith in the judiciary.
Regarding the order denying the inhibition, the Court found that Judge Concepcion erred. Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-88 provides that an executive judge should respect a judge’s voluntary inhibition and immediately assign the case to another judge. His order overruling the inhibition and directing Judge Quilantang to proceed was contrary to this circular. However, as there was no showing of bad faith in issuing this erroneous order, the Court did not hold him liable for grave abuse of discretion on this specific point but admonished him for failing to observe the circular. Consequently, the Court found Judge Concepcion guilty of gross inefficiency and imposed a fine of Three Thousand Pesos (P3,000.00).