Title
Castillo vs. Asuncion
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-23-039
Decision Date
Aug 20, 2024
Judge Asuncion found guilty of gross neglect of duty for a seven-year delay in resolving an injunction prayer, penalized with PHP 201,000.

Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-23-039)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties and Complaint
    • Complainant Rolly C. Castillo and other market stallholders filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Princeville Construction and Engineer Alfred Figueras.
    • The complaint alleged forcible eviction from the New Cubao Central Market, Cainta, Rizal.
    • The civil case No. 15-10803 was raffled to Branch 99, Regional Trial Court (RTC) Antipolo City, presided over by Judge Miguel S. Asuncion.
  • Proceedings before Judge Asuncion
    • On April 1, 2016, a hearing was conducted on the writ of preliminary injunction; Judge Asuncion ordered memoranda to be filed within 15 days from receipt of the court's ruling on the formal offer of evidence and declared the matter submitted thereafter.
    • Separate orders dated February 12 and April 27, 2016 admitted plaintiffs’ and defendants’ exhibits.
    • Plaintiffs filed their memorandum on July 14, 2016; defendants did not file any memorandum.
  • Delay and Motions Filed by Plaintiffs
    • On July 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Re-Open Hearing citing newly discovered evidence.
    • Despite parties submitting pleadings, Judge Asuncion did not resolve their motions.
    • Plaintiffs filed multiple ex-parte motions to resolve the writ of preliminary injunction between 2017 and 2018, a motion to transfer case in 2020, and a motion for inhibition.
  • Administrative Complaint Against Judge Asuncion
    • Castillo filed an administrative complaint charging Judge Asuncion with Dishonesty for certifying no pending matters to receive salary, and Gross Inefficiency for failure to resolve the preliminary injunction for 7 years.
    • The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) required Judge Asuncion to file verified comments and show cause why he should not be disciplined.
    • Judge Asuncion submitted a comment in April 2023, citing heavy workload, pandemic-related duties, and multiple designations affecting his ability to resolve the case timely.
  • Reports and Recommendations
    • The Office of the Executive Director (OED) of JIB recommended:
      • Judge Asuncion be found guilty of gross neglect of duty and fined PHP 250,000.
      • Found guilty as a member of the Bar for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and fined PHP 18,000.
      • Stern warning against repetition.
    • The OED observed:
      • Case should have been resolved within three months from submission (July 14, 2016).
      • Actual resolution occurred only in April 2023 after 7 years delay.
      • Delay was inexcusable; COVID-19 pandemic was not a valid reason since matter was submitted long before pandemic.
    • The Judicial Integrity Board recommended a fine of PHP 400,000 plus stern warning for gross neglect of duty.
  • Supreme Court Proceedings
    • Issue: Whether Judge Asuncion is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty for the delay.
    • The Court clarified that the complaint challenges only the delay in resolution, not the denial itself.
    • The Court took into account constitutional mandates (Article VIII, Sec. 15) and codes of judicial conduct requiring prompt case resolution.
    • The Court considered the timeline:
      • Memorandum filed July 14, 2016,
      • Case deemed submitted April 2016,
      • Resolution issued April 11, 2023.
    • Plaintiffs’ motions did not justify delay; motions were consistent with their prior relief requests.
    • The COVID-19 pandemic did not excuse the delay since submission predates pandemic.
  • Dishonesty Allegation
    • Castillo’s allegation of dishonesty for Judge Asuncion's certification of no pending matters was unproven.
    • Neither the OED nor JIB found merit to the dishonesty claim.
  • Concurrence Opinion
    • Justice Caguioa concurred with the penalty but emphasized the principle that not all administrative offenses involving judicial functions automatically merit parallel disciplinary actions as members of the Bar.
    • He discussed jurisprudential precedents illustrating that liability as a judge does not necessarily equate to liability as a lawyer unless misconduct affects moral fitness or involves dishonesty.
    • He reasoned that duplicative discipline in this case would be unfair as the charges stemmed solely from judicial duties.

Issues:

  • Whether Judge Miguel S. Asuncion is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty in the performance or non-performance of official functions by unduly delaying the resolution of the plaintiffs’ prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 15-10803 for almost seven years.
  • Whether Judge Asuncion is guilty of Dishonesty for certifying, in relation to receiving his salary, that he had no pending matters to resolve.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.