G.R. No. 209278 - Datu vs. Datu

Complainant Trinidad Cabahug filed an affidavit-complaint on June 3, 2002, charging Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay with undue delay in resolving her motion for reconsideration.
The motion for reconsideration pertained to Civil Case No. 217, involving a property dispute between Cirilo Cabahug (the deceased, whose favorable judgment was obtained) and Remegio Cabahug, defendant in the action for recovery of possession and damages.
The original decision in the civil case was affirmed on appeal by both the Regional Trial Court (Branch 55, Mandaue City) and the Court of Appeals, with the latter’s decision becoming final and executory on February 17, 2000.

On November 3, 2000, upon a motion by the complainant, the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) issued a writ of execution, which led to the ejection of defendant Remegio Cabahug from the property.
Complainant later alleged that Rosalinda Cabahug, the defendant’s wife, encroached on the property following the execution, prompting further action.
On July 24, 2001, complainant filed a “Motion to Cite Defendant-Wife in Contempt of Court,” which was denied by the MTC on August 24, 2001.

Complainant filed her motion for reconsideration on September 19, 2001, seeking a review of the earlier MTC ruling regarding her motion to cite the defendant’s wife.
Defendant Remegio Cabahug filed his opposition/comment on November 22, 2001, thereby officially marking the beginning of the period within which the motion was to be resolved.
Complainant maintained that her motion remained unresolved well beyond the reglementary period of ninety (90) days.

In December 2001, complainant reportedly approached Judge Dacanay for an update on the pending motion. The judge advised her to coordinate with the Clerk of Court for information on tentative hearing dates.
The Clerk provided a schedule of tentative dates and recommended that complainant confer with her counsel to prevent further postponements.
On April 22, 2002, complainant’s counsel filed a “Motion to Withdraw Appearance,” after which complainant requested a deferment of the hearing to secure new legal representation.
On June 19, 2002, Judge Dacanay issued an Order setting the hearing on the motion for reconsideration on July 12, 2002.
On July 1, 2002, complainant, acting on her own behalf, filed a “Motion for Inhibition” against the judge.
During the scheduled July 12, 2002 hearing, complainant failed to appear, and as a result, both her motion for reconsideration and her motion for inhibition were denied.

On November 29, 2002, Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. submitted a Report and Recommendation finding that Judge Dacanay had exhibited gross inefficiency by failing to resolve the motion within the stipulated ninety (90) day period.
The Report noted that, although the motion was filed on July 24, 2001, it was submitted for resolution on November 22, 2001 upon the opposition by the defendant, and the judge eventually rendered his order on July 12, 2002—after a delay of 231 days.
The judge’s explanation that the delay was attributable to complainant’s failure to select a hearing date was rejected, with the Report emphasizing that the delay was a direct act of judicial inefficiency.
The judge’s order failed to clearly indicate which motion was being set for hearing, leading to further skepticism that the issuance of the order was merely a cover for the delay.

Whether Judge Dacanay’s failure to resolve the motion for reconsideration within the mandatory 90-day reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency.

Was the delay in resolving the motion attributable solely to the judge’s inaction, notwithstanding complainant’s procedural lapses?
Does the issuance of an order after 231 days, with ambiguous reference to the motion in question, justify administrative sanctions against the judge?

Is the imposition of a fine, particularly in the amount of P11,000.00, an appropriate penalty under the relevant provisions of the Revised Rules of Court?
How do established judicial instructions and previous administrative cases inform the sanction applied in this case?