A.M. No. RTJ-05-1964 - Arles vs. Beldia

The respondent judge failed to resolve motions related to a probate case within the legally mandated 90-day period.
Regardless of the nature of the motions, the judge was required to provide a resolution citing relevant facts and law.
The delay undermines public confidence in the judiciary and tarnishes its reputation.
The Constitution mandates that lower courts must resolve cases promptly, specifically within three months from the last required pleading.
Failure to act within this timeframe constitutes a violation of the constitutional right to a speedy trial.
The judge's inaction also contravenes Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to dispose of court business promptly.

An administrative complaint was filed against Judge Rolindo D. Beldia for gross neglect of duty, arrogance, and manifest partiality due to undue delays in resolving motions.
The complainant, Atty. Henry D. Arles, represented an heir-oppositor in the probate case and detailed multiple unresolved motions dating back to 1994.
The motions included requests for the turnover of estate properties and the appointment of a special administrator, all of which remained unresolved until the filing of the complaint in 1996.
The judge claimed that delays were due to the complainant's absence at hearings and ongoing negotiations between parties, but these defenses were found to be misleading.

The investigating justice concluded that the judge's delays were detrimental to the timely administration of justice, particularly affecting the appointment of a special administrator and the inventory of estate properties.
The judge's actions were characterized as gross inefficiency, warranting administrative sanctions.
The investigating justice recommended a six-month suspension without pay, although this was later adjusted.

The Rules of Court classify undue delay in rendering decisions as a less serious offense, punishable by suspension or...continue reading