Facts:

The case in question is Bank of the Philippine Islands thru Atty. Alfonso B. Verzosa vs. Judge Joselito Sd. Generoso, decided on October 25, 1995. The complainant, represented by Atty. Alfonso B. Verzosa, initiated a sworn complaint on December 28, 1993, against Judge Joselito Sd. Generoso, the Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 34, Quezon City. The complaint alleged gross inefficiency and neglect of duty due to Judge Generoso's failure to render a decision in Civil Case No. 5447 (a case of Unlawful Detainer against Salve de Jesus) within the thirty-day period prescribed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. The events unfolded when the complainant filed the case on February 17, 1992, and after pre-trial proceedings, the case, submitted for resolution on August 24, 1992, was still unresolved after one year and four months. The complainant submitted four motions urging the judge to resolve the case, but these motions were disregarded. In a res

...

Facts:

Background of the Case

• Complainant: The Bank of the Philippine Islands, represented by Atty. Alfonso B. Verzosa.
• Respondent: Judge Joselito Sd. Generoso, Presiding Judge of Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC), Branch 34, Quezon City.

Nature and Timeline of the Dispute

• Civil Case No. 5447 involved an unlawful detainer complaint filed by the Bank against a certain Salve de Jesus on February 17, 1992.
• During the pre-trial conference, the parties failed to settle their differences; position papers, affidavits, and other evidence were subsequently submitted as required.
• The case was officially deemed submitted for resolution on August 24, 1992.

Allegations of Inefficiency and Neglect

• The complainant charged that Judge Generoso failed to render his decision within the mandatory thirty (30) days as prescribed by Section 10, Rule II of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
• A significant delay was noted – the decision was not promulgated until March 4, 1994 – amounting to a delay of approximately one year and four months from submission to decision.
• Four motions for early resolution were filed on February 16, April 15, May 25, and October 18, 1993, which were left unheeded by the respondent court.

Respondent Judge’s Explanation

• In his Comment dated April 4, 1994, Judge Generoso admitted that there was a delay in finalizing and releasing the decision.
• He attributed the delay to an inadvertent misplacement of case files triggered by the transfer and resignation of several staff members.
• He further cited the heavy volume of work in Quezon City, noting that only thirteen Metropolitan Trial Courts exist in the area.
• Despite acknowledging the delay, he claimed the tardiness was unintentional and accepted full responsibility, yet did not request an extension nor immediately inform the higher tribunal of his predicament.

Additional Developments

• A Manifestation filed by the complainant refuted the allegation that the case was finalised in October 1993, labeling it as a misrepresentation.
• Ultimately, Judge Generoso rendered a decision on March 4, 1994, dismissing the unlawful detainer complaint for lack of cause of action and ordering specific relief measures against the complainant.

Issue:

Timely Disposition of Cases

• Whether the respondent judge failed to render the decision within the mandatory thirty (30) days as established by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
• Whether the delay in rendering the decision, spanning over one year, constitutes an unreasonable period that undermines the judicial process.

Judicial Misconduct and Neglect of Duty

• Whether the failure to promptly decide Civil Case No. 5447 demonstrates gross inefficiency and neglect of duty on the part of Judge Generoso.
• Whether his failure to safeguard case records and properly manage his branch contributed to the delay.

Validity of the Judge’s Explanation and Conduct

• Whether the explanation provided by Judge Generoso regarding misplaced records and staff issues is acceptable under the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Whether his allegation that the decision was made in October 1993—later refuted by the records—further aggravates his misconduct.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)