Title
Concillo vs. Gil
Case
A.M. No. RTJ-02-1722
Decision Date
Sep 24, 2002
Judge Gil fined P5,000 for delaying LRC No. N-279 decision by nearly three years; misconduct charge dismissed due to lack of evidence. Judicial audit ordered.
fine
prescribed period
misconduct
A

Case Summary (A.M. No. RTJ-02-1722)

Factual Background

The complainants alleged that respondent Judge failed to decide LRC No. N-279 within the ninety (90) day period from the time the case was submitted for decision on 17 September 1998. They further claimed that respondent was impelled by ill-motive and had demanded a share in the property subject of LRC No. N-279. In addition, the complainants asserted that respondent had incurred criminal liability under Art. 174 [1] of the Revised Penal Code for supposedly making false statements in his Certificate of Service submitted from September 1998 to the present, specifically that he had no pending case submitted for decision or resolution when, according to complainants, LRC No. N-279 had not yet been resolved.

Referral, Non-Compliance, and Respondent’s Comment

Upon receipt of the verified letter-complaint dated 3 September 2000, the matter was referred, through a 1st Indorsement dated 13 November 2000 issued by then Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada, to respondent for comment within ten (10) days from receipt. When respondent failed to file his comment, the Court Administrator sent a 1st Tracer dated 14 November 2001, requiring respondent to submit his comment within a non-extendible period of five (5) days from receipt.

Respondent’s Comment dated 7 December 2001 followed. He explained that when he assumed office as Presiding Judge of RTC-Br. 6 in June 1998, many cases were already pending, some filed as early as 1983. He stated that among these cases was LRC No. N-279, which he said had been filed on 27 April 1988. Respondent claimed he exerted efforts to expedite resolution by conducting hearings in the mornings and afternoons. He further explained that many cases were already in the final stages of trial, with only rebuttal or sur-rebuttal evidence remaining, which allegedly caused submissions for decision to pile up. He also denied demanding a share in the property, asserting that the integrity of his office could be attested to by his entire staff, the public prosecutors assigned to his sala, and the lawyers appearing before him. As part of his Comment, he attached a duplicate original of the Decision dated 28 February 2001 that he rendered in the subject case.

OCA Memorandum and Recommendations

The OCA, in a Memorandum dated 22 May 2002, recommended that the case be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter. It also recommended the imposition of a fine of P5,000.00 against respondent for delay in deciding LRC Case No. N-279. In addition, the OCA recommended a judicial audit of RTC-Br. 6, Tacloban City. The OCA’s findings pointed to deficiencies in respondent’s monthly case monitoring: it appeared that as of March 2002, the last Monthly Report of Cases submitted by respondent Judge was an improperly accomplished report for January 2001, which allegedly did not include Item No. VI or the “List of Cases Submitted for Decision But Not Yet Decided at the End of the Month.”

As regards the charge of misconduct in office, the OCA recommended dismissal. It found that the complainants failed to substantiate their claim that respondent demanded a share in the property.

Issues Framed by the Court

The Court ultimately dealt with two core matters: first, whether respondent Judge’s delay in deciding LRC No. N-279 violated the constitutional and judicial standards requiring prompt disposition of cases; and second, whether the evidence presented by complainants sufficiently substantiated the alleged misconduct in office involving an alleged demand for a share in the property.

Legal Basis and Reasoning on Undue Delay

The Court noted the undisputed timeline: LRC No. N-279 was submitted for decision on 17 September 1998 but was decided only on 28 February 2001, or after almost three (3) years. The Court found this to be in violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which commands that judges decide cases within prescribed periods.

In reinforcing the rule on prompt judicial disposition, the Court cited Sec. 15, par. (1), Art. VIII of the 1987 Constitution, which provides that cases or matters filed after the effectivity of the Constitution must be decided within twenty-four months for the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts, unless reduced by the Supreme Court.

The Court emphasized the constitutional and ethical significance of prompt adjudication. It held that public faith and confidence in the judicial system depend substantially on the judicious and prompt disposition of pending matters. It also observed that delay not only reinforces the belief that justice proceeds slowly, but it also invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge.

While the Court expressed sympathy for judges confronted with heavy caseloads, it held that such circumstance did not constitute a sufficient excuse to avoid administrative sanction. It reasoned that judges may always request extensions of time within which to decide should they find themselves unable to comply with the ninety (90) day requirement. It further held that extensions are generally granted unless a discernible pattern of delay exists.

The Court then addressed the propriety of the penalty. It noted that previously it imposed a fine of P5,000.00 on judges who failed to decide cases within prescribed periods. It also acknowledged later amendments to Rule 140, under which undue delay in rendering a decision or order was punishable with suspension from office without salary and benefits for one (1) to three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. However, the Court ruled that the amendments could not apply because they took effect on 1 October 2001, after the delay complained of had already occurred, and after LRC No. N-279 had already been decided by respondent.

Reasoning on Misconduct in Office and Failure to Substantiate

On the charge of misconduct in office, the Court agreed with the OCA that the charge should be dismissed. It found that complainants failed to substantiate their allegation that respondent demanded a share in the property subject matter of LRC No. N-279.

The Court cited Section 1, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which requires that facts constituting the alleged serious misconduct or inefficiency be set out distinctly, clearly, and concisely. It further required substantiation by affidavits of persons having personal knowledge of the facts alleged, as well as other accompanying documents.

The Court found that complainants neither detailed their allegations in a sufficiently substantiated manner nor supported

...continue reading

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster, building context before diving into full texts. AI-powered analysis, always verify critical details.

About Privacy Terms