A.M. No. MTJ-08-1714 - Sevilla vs. Lindo

Daniel G. Sevilla, the private complainant, filed the complaint on July 4, 2007, charging Judge Francisco S. Lindo of undue delay in the disposition of Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260, a case involving a prosecution for violation of Batas Pambansa Bilang 22 in People v. Nestor Leynes.
Sevilla alleged that:

He was compelled to testify a single time regarding his personal circumstances.
After his testimony, Judge Lindo adjourned the session for lack of material time and persistently reset subsequent hearings.
The repeated postponements were intended to coerce him into accepting an amicable settlement the accused proposed.
On multiple occasions, Judge Lindo made discouraging remarks in open court and in his chamber.
Such conduct amounted to a violation of Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and Section 1, Rule 135 of the Rules of Court.

The initial trial was set on August 17, 2004, but due to the complainant’s absence, the case was provisionally dismissed upon the defense’s motion—with the accused’s and public prosecutor’s consent.
In the interest of fairness, he later set aside the provisional dismissal and reinstated the case upon Sevilla’s motion.

October 19, 2004 trial reset on December 7, 2004 and again on February 1, 2005 due to his leave.
Subsequent hearings were postponed for various reasons:

Agreement of the parties for several dates (March 4, April 26, October 4, November 29, 2005, and August 2, 2006).
Absence of the public prosecutor (May 20, 2005) and absence of the PAO lawyer on two occasions (May 16, 2005 and January 12, 2007).
Docket inventory issues (August 12, 2005).
Lack of material time due to overlapping trials (March 14, 2006, September 1, 2006, and November 24, 2006).
Absence of the complainant (January 10, 2006).

The OCA, on May 20, 2008, submitted a report following a judicial audit conducted from July 12 to 19, 2007.

A significant number of cases (23 in total) remained undecided beyond the 90-day period with several incident/motion cases.
Twenty-one cases had no action taken since filing.
Poor recordkeeping and absence of an updated case inventory.
Twenty-one old “inherited” cases found in Judge Lindo’s chambers, not properly documented in the docket inventories.
Missing presentation of case folders and unreported criminal cases in the inventory.

Based on the audit, the OCA recommended that Judge Lindo be held administratively liable for “delay in the disposition of cases which was tantamount to inefficiency and incompetence” and imposed a fine of ₱21,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

The case was re-docketed as a regular administrative matter on August 4, 2008.
Judge Lindo later moved for the early resolution of the case and the release of his retirement benefits.
On February 17, 2009, he filed an ex parte manifestation concerning his involvement in another administrative case and argued that the retention of ₱100,000.00 from his retirement benefits should cover both cases.
On June 17, 2009, the court ordered the release of his retirement benefits subject to the ₱100,000.00 retention.
A related administrative case (A.M. No. 08-3-73-MeTC) resulted in a fine of ₱20,000.00 for simple misconduct regarding undue delay.

The central issue is whether retired Judge Francisco S. Lindo is administratively liable for the numerous postponements in Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260.

Whether the repeated postponements and resettings, amounting to a delay in the disposition of the case, were justified by meritorious grounds.
Whether such actions constitute a violation of judicial ethical standards and the prescribed rules regarding the speedy disposition of cases.