Facts:
Francisco Concillo, Matilde Concillo Movilla, Simeona Concillo, and Salvacion Concillo Movilla (complainants) filed a verified letter-complaint dated
3 September 2000 against
Judge Santos T. Gil, RTC-Br. 6, Tacloban City, charging him with
Gross Inefficiency and Misconduct in Office for failing to decide LRC No. N-279 entitled
“In re: Application for Original Registration of Lot No. 2975 Cad. 220 Caibaan, Tacloban City, Heirs of Pedro Concillo, Applicants.” The complainants alleged that the land registration case was submitted for decision on
17 September 1998 but was not decided within the
prescribed ninety (90)-day period. They further claimed that respondent acted from an
ill-motive by allegedly demanding a share in the property subject of the case. In addition, complainants asserted that respondent was
criminally liable under Art. 174[1] of the Revised Penal Code for falsely stating in his
Certificate of Service submitted from September 1998 to the present that he had no pending case submitted for decision or resolution, when, according to complainants, LRC No. N-279 had not yet been resolved. After the letter-complaint was referred to respondent for comment in a
1st Indorsement dated 13 November 2000, the Office of the Court Administrator issued a tracer dated
14 November 2001 when respondent failed to file his comment within the required period. Respondent submitted his
Comment dated 7 December 2001, explaining that upon assuming office in
June 1998, there were many cases already filed as early as
1983 but still pending trial, including LRC No. N-279 filed on
27 April 1988. He stated that he attempted to expedite disposition by conducting hearings in the mornings and afternoons, but that cases submitted for decision piled up because most were in the final stages of trial. He denied demanding a share in the property and attached a duplicate original of the
Decision dated 28 February 2001 that he rendered in the land registration case. The Office of the Court Administrator, in a
Memorandum dated 22 May 2002, recommended that the matter be re-docketed as a regular administrative case and that respondent be fined
P5,000.00 for delay in deciding LRC No. N-279. It also recommended a
judicial audit because, as of
March 2002, respondent’s last Monthly Report of Cases submitted showed an improperly accomplished report for January 2001 that did not even include the required list of cases submitted for decision but not yet decided. The OCA recommended dismissal of the misconduct charge for lack of substantiation, and the Court agreed. The Court noted that LRC No. N-279 was submitted for decision on
17 September 1998 but was decided by respondent only on
28 February 2001, or after almost
three (3) years, a period it held to be in violation of
Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct which requires prompt decision within the prescribed periods.
Issues:
Did respondent Judge Santos T. Gil commit
undue delay and
misconduct in office warranting administrative sanction in connection with LRC No. N-279, and was the misconduct charge properly dismissed for failure of substantiation?
Ruling:
Ratio:
Doctrine: