A.M. No. MTJ-12-1806 - Office of the Court Administrator vs. Bustamante

A judicial audit was conducted on September 21, 2010, at the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Alaminos City, Pangasinan, where Judge Borromeo R. Bustamante presided.
The audit focused on the delay in decision-making and resolution of pending incidents, revealing that as of the audit date, 35 cases were pending decision (with 21 cases already beyond the reglementary period) and 23 cases had pending incidents for resolution (with 19 cases already overdue).

On October 6, 2010, Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva (Villanueva) issued a memorandum to Judge Bustamante.
The memorandum detailed:

The specific cases that were overdue for decision or resolution, including precise civil, criminal, and LRC case numbers.
Directives for Judge Bustamante to explain in writing, within fifteen (15) days, his failure to decide or resolve certain cases within the required reglementary period.
Instructions to dispatch decisions and resolutions, with the submission of copies to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) within three (3) days after his imminent retirement.

On November 8, 2010, Judge Bustamante submitted a letter explaining the delays in deciding and resolving the cases.

He claimed that all cases, except for Civil Cases Nos. 1937 and 2056, were decided before his retirement, attributing the delay to the heavy workload that included urgent motions, motions to dismiss, and other trial duties.
For the exceptions, he explained that lack of a Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) warranted additional hearings or retaking testimonies to ensure substantial justice.

He further explained that pending incidents in various cases were either resolved on a preliminary basis or were intentionally set aside for further hearing due to the complexity of motions and oversight caused by simultaneous case submissions.
Judge Bustamante supplemented his explanation with copies of the decisions and resolutions he had rendered.

Out of 35 cases, 33 had been decided, with 20 of these decisions rendered beyond the reglementary period—10 cases exceeding the period by more than a year, and 10 within the year but still delayed.
Of the 23 cases with pending incidents, only 6 had been resolved, all beyond their reglementary time limits, while 17 remained unresolved due to reasons such as the need for further hearings, dependence on other pending cases, or mere oversight.

The OCA highlighted that Judge Bustamante failed to submit any order for setting the unresolved incidents for further hearing or holding them in abeyance until related cases in other courts were decided.
Citing the substantial delays and lack of a valid justification, the OCA recommended a fine of P20,000.00 for gross inefficiency.

Judge Bustamante later communicated in a letter dated July 3, 2013, that because of the unresolved administrative matter, he had not received his retirement benefits (except for accumulated leave credits).
He prayed for a speedy resolution of the case, or alternatively, for the release of his retirement benefits minus an amount equivalent to any fine imposed.

Whether Judge Bustamante failed to decide and resolve cases and incidents within the constitutionally mandated 90-day reglementary period without an authorized extension.

The determination centered on the adherence to the deadline stipulated by the Constitution, the Code of Judicial Conduct, and established jurisprudence.
Whether the reasons provided by Judge Bustamante—namely, heavy workload and oversight—constituted a valid justification for the delay.

The adequacy of Judge Bustamante’s explanations regarding the lack of a Transcript of Stenographic Notes (TSN) in two specific civil cases.

Whether the absence of TSN could legitimately excuse the delay in reaching a decision, particularly when these cases had been substantially heard.
Whether the delay in initiating the TSN process before his retirement contributed significantly to the delay in decision rendering.

Whether the administrative sanction recommended (a fine) was appropriate under the guidelines of the amended Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.

Given that the administration’s mandate on prompt decision-making is stringent, does the established delay merit the imposition of a fine?
Whether the judge’s failure to secure any extension prior to the delay further justified the penalty.