Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 682

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 682 4/5/21, 3:12 PM
ANNOTATION
SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES
By
MARIANO C. ULEP*
___________________
§ 1. Introduction, p. 726
§ 2. Specific periods for courts to render a decision,
p. 727
§ 3. „The last pleading‰ defined, p. 729
§ 4. Laws and rules to guarantee prompt, speedy and
expeditious disposition of cases, p. 729
§ 5. Rationale behind the ninety (90) day
reglementary period for lower courts to decide
cases, p. 731
§ 6. Factors to consider in the determination of
whether the constitutional right to speedy
disposition of cases has been violated, p. 732
§ 7. Effect of delay in rendering a decision, be it a
day, a week or a month. Discuss fully, p. 732
§ 8. When will the three (3) months period begin to
run·is it (a) from the termination of the trial; (b)
the expiration of the period to file Memoranda or
(c) upon the expiration of the period for the
stenographer to complete her transcript of
stenographic notes, p. 733
§ 9. Will the fact that a case is highly complicated be
a valid defense for not deciding a case within the
ninety day period?, p. 733
§ 10. The ninety (90) day period to decide a case is
mandatory. Exceptions, p. 734
http://www.central.com.ph/sfsreader/session/000001789cac127dc89901d5003600fb002c009e/p/ARP582/?username=Guest Page 1 of 77
_______________
* Former Associate Dean, UE College of Law. Professor of Law and
Author of various law books.
725
VOL. 682, 725

Speedy Disposition of Cases
§ 11. The time line in deciding cases is applicable to

incidents, motions and interlocutory matters in a
case, p. 735
§ 12. If the decision of a Regional Trial Court judge
was promulgated beyond the ninety days period,
will it be a nullity?, p. 735
§ 13. Is it not unusual for a judge who did not try a
case in its entirety (because the former judge
either died, resigned, indefinitely suspended,
promoted or transferred to another sala), to
decide it on the basis of the records on hand
without violating substantive and procedural law.
Reason for the rule, p. 735
§ 14. When a provision of a law is silent and
ambiguous, what must judges do in rendering a
decision, p. 736
§ 15. A judge cannot request for exemption from
compliance with the mandated reglementary
period to decide a case. Reason for the rule, p. 737
§ 16. If the caseload prevented the disposition of
cases within the reglementary period, what must
the Judge do?, p. 737
§ 17. Effect if the judge fails to ask for an extension
of time to decide cases or incidents after they
became due, p. 738
§ 18. Death threats will not constitute a valid excuse
for not complying with the 90 day period to decide
cases. Reason therefor, p. 739
§ 19. A Memorandum is not part of the trial or
essential before a case may be submitted for
decision by the judge, p. 739
§ 20. Define and give the scope of the right to
„speedy disposition of cases‰, p. 740
§ 21. Purpose of the mandatory continuous trial

system, p. 740
726
726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

§ 22. Scope of the constitutional right to speedy

disposition of cases, p. 740
§ 23. A person may be held liable for damages for
violation of the right of the accused to speedy
trial, p. 741
§ 24. What is the policy of the Supreme Court when a
litigant intentionally prolongs litigation?, p. 741
§ 25. If the judge could no longer perform his duty,
owing to physical difficulty or ailment, what must
he do?, p. 741
§ 26. What is the Speedy Trial Act of 1998?, p. 742
§ 27. Effect of undue delay in the disposition of
cases, p. 743
§ 28. Scope of the speedy disposition rule, p. 743
§ 29. The absence of a transcript of stenographic
notes does not toll the running of the ninety (90)
day period to render a decision or any
interlocutory matter, p. 743
§ 30. If a judge fails to decide a case or resolve any
matter before him within the ninety (90) day
period, what does this constitute?, p. 744
§ 31. Factors to consider in the determination of the
proper penalty for failure of a judge to decide a
case on time, p. 744
§ 32. What constitutes „an unreasonable length of
time‰?, p. 745
§ 33. Penalty for undue delay in the resolution of a
case, motions and pending incidents, p. 745
___________________
§ 1. Introduction
The recent incident at the Cebu Palace of Justice

whereby a Canadian shot to death a lawyer and his client
is disturbing. The Canadian claims the slow pace of justice
in this country based on his personal observation.
727
VOL. 682, 727

Unfortunately, he killed himself after the incident. Had

he chosen to live a little longer, he would probably read this
article, to show that he is wrong. This country in fact has
the best laws and jurisprudence to address the problem of
clogged court dockets.
Since time immemorial, undue delay in the disposition
of cases has been frowned upon by the Supreme Court and
no amount or kind of reason changes its mind to discipline
erring members of the bench once the constitutional limit
to decide a case is breached. Along this line, an ideal judge
in fact must think like King Solomon, behave like a
Cardinal in and out of court and act like Superman to do
his job.
§ 2. Specific periods for courts to render a decision
1. Supreme Court·twenty four (24) months, from the
submission of the last pleading. The filing of extensions of
time to file comment is not included. (United BF
Homeowners v. Sandoval-Gutierrez and Benipayo, 315
SCRA 423. See the sequel case in 343 SCRA 163. See also
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted at the
Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, Malabon City, 594
SCRA 492)
2. Court of Appeals·twelve (12) months. However, for a
Motion for Reconsideration, it must be resolved within
ninety days, reckoned from the date it is submitted for
resolution. (Orocio v. Justice Roxas, 562 SCRA 347. Later,
in another case, the same Justice Vicente Q. Roxas was
dismissed from the service due to grave misconduct,
dishonesty, undue interest and conduct prejudicial to the
best interest of the service. See Re: Letter of Presiding
Justice Conrado M. Vasquez, Jr. on CA-GR SP. No. 103692,
564 SCRA 365. Motion for Reconsideration denied with
Finality in Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.

Vasquez, Jr. on CA-GR SP. No. 103692 [Antonio Rosete, et
al. v. Securities and Exchange Commission, et al.], 569
SCRA 8)
728

3. Sandiganbayan·three (3) months (Re: Problem of

Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, 370 SCRA 658.
Motion for Reconsideration denied with finality in 375
SCRA 339)
4. Regional Trial Court·three (3) months and non-
extendible. Judges themselves cannot prolong the period
for deciding cases (Lagaret v. Bantuas, 114 SCRA 603,
Nidua v. Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581, Sabitsana, Jr. v. Villamor,
202 SCRA 435, Cortes v. Maglalang, 227 SCRA 482, Re:
Judge Liberato C. Cortes, 242 SCRA 167, Celino v. Abrogar,
245 SCRA 304, Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted
in the Regional Trial Court Branches 61, 134 and 147,
Makati Metro Manila, 248 SCRA 5, Re: Report of Justice
Felipe B. Kalalo, 282 SCRA 61, Re: Report on the Judicial
Audit in RTC-Br. 16, Ozamiz City, 438 SCRA 363, Office of
the Court Administrator v. Espanol, 440 SCRA 332, Wong
Jan Realty, Inc. v. Espanol, 472 SCRA 496, Report on the
Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Br.
55, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, 484 SCRA 99, Re:
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional
Trial Court, Br. 2, Borongan, Eastern Samar, 504 SCRA
756, Sesbreno v. Gako, Jr., 570 SCRA 398, Letter of Judge
Josefina D. Farrales, Acting Presiding Judge, RTC, Br. 72,
Olongapo City, 575 SCRA 365; Re: 30 Cases and 84 Motions
Submitted for Decision/Resolution in the Said Court, 575
SCRA 365, Areola v. Ilano, 579 SCRA 549, Duque v.
Garrido, 580 SCRA 321, Re: Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Jimenez-
Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental/Judge Priscilla
Hernandez, 592 SCRA 566, De los Reyes v. Cruz, 610 SCRA
255, Request of Judge Nino A. Batingana, Regional Trial
Court, Branch 6, Mati, Davao Oriental for Extension of
Time to Decide Criminal Case No. 4735-05, 611 SCRA 179,

Soluren v. Torres, 630 SCRA 449, Edano v. Asdala, 636
SCRA 466, Cabasares v. Tandinco, Jr., 659 SCRA 396)
5. Municipal Trial Court·three (3) months from the
time the last pleading is submitted. (Padilla v. Zantua, Jr.,
237
729
VOL. 682, 729

SCRA 670, Raboca v. Pontanosas, Jr., 245 SCRA 293,

Enriquez v. Camarista, 280 SCRA 1, Report on the Spot
Judicial Audit Conducted in the Metropolitan Trial Court,
Br. 40, Quezon City, 331 SCRA 627, Gonzales v. Torres, 528
SCRA 490. See also Art. VIII, Sec. 15 (1), 1987
Constitution. It says that all cases or matters must be
decided or resolved by the lower courts within three
months from the date of submission of the last pleading.
Supplementary to this constitutional provision are: (1) Rule
3.05, Canon 3, and Canons 6 and 7 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct. See Bongcaron v. Eisma, 237 SCRA 793). The
three months period applies only after the case is
submitted for decision and not from the start of the trial.
(Office of the Court Administrator v. Castillo, 368 SCRA
189)
§ 3. „The last pleading‰ defined
The „last pleading‰ is defined as „the answer ordinarily
is the last pleading, but when the defendantÊs answer
contains a counterclaim, plaintiff Ês answer to it is the last
pleading. When the defendants answer has a cross claim,
the answer of the cross-defendant to it is the last pleading.
Where the plaintiff Ês answer to a counterclaim contains a
counterclaim against the opposing party or a cross-claim
against a co-defendant, the answer of the co-defendant to
the cross-claim is the last pleading. And where the plaintiff
files a reply alleging facts in denial or avoidance of new
matter by way of defense in the answer, such reply
constitutes the last pleading. (Peggy v. Tapucar, 88 SCRA
785)
§ 4. Laws and rules to guarantee prompt, speedy and
expeditious disposition of cases

1. Art. VIII, Sec. 15 of the 1987 Constitution.·It says:
All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this
Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty
four months from the date of submission for the Supreme
Court, and unless
730

reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower

collegiate courts and three months for all other lower
courts.
2. Art. III, Section 16 also of the 1987 Constitution.·It
says: All persons shall have the right to a speedy
disposition of their cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial
or administrative bodies.
3. Section 10, Rule II of the Revised Rules on Summary
Procedure.·It says that the court shall render judgment
within thirty (30) days after the receipt of the last affidavit
and position paper, or the expiration of the period for filing
the same.
4. Rule 3.05, Canon 3, Code of Judicial Conduct.·A
judge shall dispose of the courtÊs business promptly and
decide cases within the required periods.
5. Rule 1.02, Canon 1, Code of Judicial Conduct.·A
judge should administer justice impartially and without
delay.
6. Canon 6, Canons of Judicial Ethics.·He should be
prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him,
remembering that justice delayed is often justice denied.
7. Canon 7, Canons of Judicial Ethics.·He should be
punctual in the performance of his judicial duties,
recognizing that the time of litigants, witnesses and
attorneys is of value and that if the judge is unpunctual in
his habits, he sets a bad example to the bar and tends to
create dissatisfaction with the administration of justice.
8. SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87.·The
reorganized judiciary is tasked wit the tremendous
responsibility of assisting parties litigants in obtaining
just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases

and proceedings as directed in Rule 1, Section 2 of the
Rules of Court. Delay is a recurring complaint of every
litigant. The main objective of every judge, particularly
trial judges, should be to avoid delays, or if it cannot be
totally avoided, to hold them to the minimum and to
repudiate manifestly dilatory tactics.
731
VOL. 682, 731

9. SC Administrative Circular No. 1-88.·Pursuant to

Sec. 12, Art. XVIII of the 1987 Constitution mandating the
adoption of a systematic plan to expedite the decision or
resolution of cases or matters pending in the Supreme
Court and the lower courts prior to the effectivity of the
Constitution on February 2, 1987, the following directives
must be complied with strictly by all concerned. xxx 6.
Motions and Other Interlocutory Matters xxx 6.1 All
Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all
motions and interlocutory matters pending before their
courts.
10. Administrative Circular No. 1 dated January 26,
1988.·This circular requires all magistrates to act
promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending
before their courts.
11. Administrative Circular No. 3-99 dated January 15,
1999.·This circular requires judges to scrupulously
observe the periods prescribed by Section 15, Article VIII of
the Constitution in the adjudication and resolution of all
cases or matters submitted to their courts.
§ 5. Rationale behind the ninety (90) day
reglementary period for lower courts to decide
cases
To prevent delay in the administration of justice and to
speed up the disposition of a case. Delay results in the
undermining the peopleÊs faith in the judiciary from whom
the prompt hearing of their supplications is anticipated
and expected, and reinforces in the mind of litigants the
impression that wheels of justice grind ever so slowly. (Sy
Bang v. Mendez, 287 SCRA 84. See also Office of the Court
Administrator v. Salva, 336 SCRA 133, Cases Left
Undecided by Retired Judge Antonio E. Arbis, RTC Branch
48, Bacolod City, 395 SCRA 398, Concerned Citizens of
Maddela v. Yadao, 393 SCRA 217, Guillas v. Munez, 363
SCRA 701, Ricolcol v. Camarista, 312 SCRA 468, Ocampo
v. Bibat-Palamos, 517
732

SCRA 480, Office of the Court Administrator v. Dayon, 571

SCRA 496, Biggel v. Pamintuan, 559 SCRA 344)
§ 6. Factors to consider in the determination of
whether the constitutional right to speedy
disposition of cases has been violated
They are as follows: (a) the duration of the delay, (b) the
reason for the delay, (c) assertion of the right or failure to
assert it and (d) the prejudice caused by such delay.
(Dansal v. Fernandez, Sr., 327 SCRA 145, 153)
Moreover, The right to speedy disposition of cases, like
the right to a speedy trial, is deemed violated only when
the proceedings is attended by vexatious, capricious and
oppressive delays, or when unjustified postponements of
the trial are asked for and secured, or when without cause
or unjustifiable motive, a long period of time is allowed to
elapse without the party having his case tried. In the
determination of whether that right has been violated, the
factors that may be considered and balanced are: the
length of the delay; the reasons for such delay; the
assertion or failure to assert such right by the accused and
the prejudice caused by the delay. A mere mathematical
reckoning of the time involved, therefore, would not be
sufficient. Particular regard must also be taken of the facts
and circumstances peculiar to each case. (Ty-Dazo v.
Sandiganbayan, 374 SCRA 200, Gaas v. Mitmug, 553
SCRA 335)
§ 7. Effect of delay in rendering a decision, be it a
day, a week or a month. Discuss fully
Delay derails the administration of justice. It postpones
the rectification of wrong and the vindication of the

unjustly prosecuted. It crowds the dockets of the courts,
increasing the costs for all litigants, pressuring judges to
take short cuts, interfering with the prompt and deliberate
disposition of those causes in which all parties are diligent
and prepared for
733
VOL. 682, 733

trial, and overhanging the entire process with the pall of

disorganization and insolubility. More than this,
possibilities for error in fact-finding multiply rapidly as
time elapses between the original fact and its judicial
determination. If the facts are not fully and accurately
determined, then the wisest judge cannot distinguish
between merit and demerit. If courts do not beget the facts
right, there is little change for their judgment to be right.
(Orocio v. Roxas, 562 SCRA 347, Re: Anonymous Letter
Relative to the Alleged Corruption in the Court of Appeals,
Cagayan de Oro City, 639 SCRA 601)
§ 8. When will the three (3) months period begin to
run·is it (a) from the termination of the trial; (b)
the expiration of the period to file Memoranda or
(c) upon the expiration of the period for the
stenographer to complete her transcript of
stenographic notes
It must be considered submitted for decision upon
termination of the trial and/or the expiration of the period
to file memoranda and not upon the expiration of the
period which the judge gave his stenographer to transcribe
the transcript of stenographic notes. Judges must take
down notes of salient portions of the hearing and to proceed
in the preparation of decisions without waiting for the
transcript of stenographic notes. With or without the
transcript of stenographic notes, the ninety (90) day period
for deciding cases should be adhered to. (Lawan v. Moleta,
90 SCRA 579, Office of the Court Administrator v. Joven,
399 SCRA 18, Galanza v. Trocino, 529 SCRA 200, Re:
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar, 536 SCRA

313, Olaguer v. Ampuan, 632 SCRA 226)
§ 9. Will the fact that a case is highly complicated be
a valid defense for not deciding a case within the
ninety day period?
734

No. Whether a case is simple or complicated, the

Constitution mandates that judges must decide the case
within the prescribed ninety (90) day period, after it is
submitted for decision. (Guitante v. Bantuas, 95 SCRA 433)
§ 10. The ninety (90) day period to decide a case is
mandatory. Exceptions
No less than the Constitution mandates lower court
judges to decide a case within the reglementary period of
ninety (90) days. (Office of the Court Administrator v.
Garcia-Blanco, 488 SCRA 109)
Exceptions:
(1) A delay of seven (7) months in deciding a criminal
case was excused in the National Capital Region (Branch
47, Manila), because of its heavy caseload, more so if there
is nothing on record will show that the delay was done
maliciously or was caused with deliberate intent to inflict
damage (Santos v. Lorenzo, 387 SCRA 406)
(2) A delay of more than eight (8) months in resolving a
motion for reconsideration (Branch 36, Makati) because of
the „more complex nature of the litigation, both civil and
criminal in the highly urbanized area, not to mention, the
unusual concentration of well-known lawyers in the big law
firms of that city whose pleadings, motions, arguments, etc.
would ordinarily raise issues and incidents calling for more
research and greater expenditure of effort and time on the
part of the judge. (Victoria v. Zosa, 115 SCRA 159)
(3) If it is due to the filing of multifarious motions. (San
Pedro v. Salvador, 66 SCRA 534)
(4) If the delay is attributed to the sudden deluge of
cases brought about by the unprecedented expansion of the
jurisdiction of the municipal trial courts. For example a
municipal trial court had an original caseload of one

thousand two hundred seventeen cases (1,217) and seven
hundred (700) more
735
VOL. 682, 735

was added as a result of the expanded jurisdiction of

municipal trial courts. (Marquez v. Manigbas, 320 SCRA 1)
§ 11. The time line in deciding cases is applicable to
incidents, motions and interlocutory matters in a
case.
Unreasonable delay of a judge in resolving a pending
incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and
constitutes inefficiency that warrants the imposition of an
administrative sanction against the defaulting magistrate.
The time line in deciding cases is applicable to all
incidents, motions and interlocutory matters in a case.
(Dacanay v. People, 240 SCRA 490, Canson v. Garchitorena,
311 SCRA 268, Hilario v. Concepcion, 327 SCRA 96,
Pesayco v. Layague, 447 SCRA 450)
§ 12. If the decision of a Regional Trial Court judge
was promulgated beyond the ninety days period,
will it be a nullity?
No. The failure to decide cases within the ninety day
period required by law, constitutes a ground for
administrative liability against the defaulting judge which
may take the form of dismissal, forfeiture of benefits and
privileges or a fine, but it does not make the judgment a
nullity. The judgment is valid. (People v. Mendoza, 365
SCRA 289, 301-302)
§ 13. Is it not unusual for a judge who did not try a
case in its entirety (because the former judge
either died, resigned, indefinitely suspended,
promoted or transferred to another sala), to
decide it on the basis of the records on hand
without violating substantive and procedural law.
Reason for the rule
736

A judge who did not hear the case in its entirety can still
decide the case by relying on the transcript of stenographic
notes and calibrate the testimonies of witnesses in
accordance with their conformity to common experience,
knowledge and observation of ordinary men or he can even
conduct an ocular inspection of the place subject matter of
the case or the scene of the crime, as the case maybe. (U.S.
v. Abreau, 30 Phil. 402, Co Tao v. Court of Appeals, 101
Phil. 188, People v. Narajaos, 149 SCRA 399, People v.
Juanga, 189 SCRA 226, Ayco v. Fernandez, 195 SCRA 328,
People v. Collado, 196 SCRA 519, People v. De Paz, 212
SCRA 56, People v. Jaymalin, 214 SCRA 685, People v.
Sadiangabay, 220 SCRA 551, People v. Gamiao, 240 SCRA
254, People v. Rayray, 241 SCRA 1, People v. Fulinara, 247
SCRA 28, People v. Gazmen, 247 SCRA 414, People v.
Plasencia, 249 SCRA 674, People v. Espanola, 271 SCRA
689, People v. Cadley, 425 SCRA 493, Decasa v. Court of
Appeals, 527 SCRA 267, Garcia v. People, 597 SCRA 392,
402, People v. Garchitorena, 597 SCRA 420, People v.
Paling, 645 SCRA 627)
The reason for the rule is, it is rooted in practical
considerations. Sometimes it is an impossibility for the
judge who tried the case to be the same judicial officer to
decide it. The judge who heard the case may have died,
resigned, indefinitely suspended or retired from the bench
before he could render judgment thereon. (Villanueva v.
Estenzo, 64 SCRA 407, People v. Dino, 160 SCRA 197)
§ 14. When a provision of a law is silent and
ambiguous, what must judges do in rendering a
decision
He must take the principles of right and justice at heart.
In case of doubt, the intent is to promote right and justice.
Fiat justicia ruat coelum. Stated differently, when a
provision of law is silent or ambiguous, judges ought to
invoke a solution responsive to the vehement urge of
conscience. (Amatan v. Aurejo, 248 SCRA 511, Art. 10, New
Civil Code)
737
VOL. 682, 737

§ 15. A judge cannot request for exemption from

compliance with the mandated reglementary
period to decide a case. Reason for the rule
A judge cannot request for an exemption from
compliance with the mandated reglementary period to
decide a case or resolve pending incidents because it would
be irregular. (Re: Report on the Judicial & Financial Audit
Conducted in MTCÊs Bayombong & Solano & MCTC,
Aritao-Sta. Fe, Nueva Vizcaya, 535 SCRA 224)
§ 16. If the caseload prevented the disposition of
cases within the reglementary period, what must
the Judge do?
All he has to do is to ask the Supreme Court for a
reasonable extension of time to dispose the cases involved
especially if he is stricken by grave illness or encounters
personal tragedies or difficult questions of law and complex
issues are involved or he is designated as Acting Presiding
Judge in another sala (Cruz v. Basa, 218 SCRA 551,
Mappala v. Nunez, 240 SCRA 600, Espanola v. Panay, 248
SCRA 684, Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in
Municipal Trial Court, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, 282 SCRA
463, Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Branch 27,
Lapu-lapu City, 289 SCRA 404, Office of the Court
Administrator v. Butalid, 293 SCRA 589, Sanchez v. Vestil,
298 SCRA 1, Bernardo v. Fabros, 307 SCRA 28, Sena v.
Villarin, 328 SCRA 644, Cases Submitted for Decision
Before Retired Judge Maximo A. Savellano, Jr., RTC-Br. 53,
Manila, 329 SCRA 637, Office of the Court Administrator v.
Aquino, 334 SCRA 179, Office of the Court Administrator v.
Salva, 336 SCRA 133, De la Cruz v. Bersamira, 336 SCRA
353, Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC,
Brs. 87 and 98, Quezon City, 338 SCRA 141, Judicial Audit
Report, RTC, Brs. 21, 35 & 36 & MTCC, Brs. 1 & 2,
Santiago City, RTC 17, Ilagan, Isabela, 343 SCRA 427,
Villanueva, Jr. v. Estoya, 346 SCRA 230, Gonzales-Decano
v. Siapno, 353
738

SCRA 269, Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in

the RTC-Br. 220, Quezon City, 360 SCRA 242, Office of the
Court Administrator v. Noynay, 399 SCRA 261, Report on
the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, 408 SCRA
583, Juson v. Mondragon, 532 SCRA 1, Office of the Court
Administrator v. Trocino, 523 SCRA 262, Galanza v.
Trocino, 529 SCRA 200, Juson v. Mondragon, 532 SCRA 1,
Office of the Court Administrator v. Reyes, 542 SCRA 330,
Re: Administrative Matter No. 05-8-244-MTC, 546 SCRA 1,
Reyes v. Paderanga, 548 SCRA 244, Re: Judicial Audit
Conducted in the RTC, Br. 14, Davao City, Presided Over by
Judge William M. Layague, 552 SCRA 1, Mina v. Mupas,
555 SCRA 44, Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted
in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan
de Oro City, 594 SCRA 1, Raymundo v. Andoy, 632 SCRA
218, Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the
Regional Trial Court-Branch 56, Mandaue City, Cebu, 643
SCRA 407, Hipe v. Literato, 671 SCRA 9). However, a judge
has no right to presume that the request for extension of
time to decide a case will be granted. (Request of Judge
Irma Zita Masamayor, RTC, Br. 52, Talibon, Bohol for
Extension of Time to Decide Crim. Case No. 96-251, 328
SCRA 584)
§ 17. Effect if the judge fails to ask for an extension
of time to decide cases or incidents after they
became due
This constitutes gross inefficiency that merits
administrative sanction because delay in case disposition is
a major culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence
in the judiciary and the lowering of its standards. There is
a need to resolve cases expeditiously because justice
delayed is justice denied. (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted in RTC Branches 29 and 59, Toledo City, 292
SCRA 8, Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the
RTC-Branch 37, Lingayen, Pangasinan, 336 SCRA 344, Re:
Cases Submitted for
739
VOL. 682, 739

Decision Before Judge Damaso A. Herrera, Regional Trial

Court, Branch 24, Binan, Laguna, 633 SCRA 1, Bernardo,
Jr. v. Montojo, 634 SCRA 1, Tilan v. Piscoso-Flor, 639 SCRA
1, Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the
Regional Trial Court, Branches 72 and 22, Narvacan, Ilocos
Sur, 672 SCRA 21)
§ 18. Death threats will not constitute a valid excuse
for not complying with the 90 day period to decide
cases. Reason therefor
Death threats on the judge or any members of his staff
is not a valid excuse for not complying with the 90 day
period to decide cases because a member of the judiciary
must display competence and diligence amid all adversities
to live up to her oath of office. (Angeles v. Sempio-Dy, 631
SCRA 456)
If indeed, death threat becomes persistent and
imminent, may a judge issue an order for him to desist
from temporarily performing judicial functions?
No. He should secure protection from the local police
force or from the Supreme Court. He may also request the
Supreme Court to hold office elsewhere or change of venue,
whichever is appropriate under the circumstances, or he
could file a leave of absence informing the Supreme Court
of his predicament in order to avoid charges of dereliction
of duty. (Amante-Descallar v. Ramas, 638 SCRA 358)
§ 19. A Memorandum is not part of the trial or
essential before a case may be submitted for
decision by the judge
The filing of a memoranda is not a part of the trial nor
essential, much less an indispensable pleading before a
judge may render a decision. A memorandum is merely
intended to aid the court in the rendition of the decision·
which even in its absence, the court can do on the basis of
the judgeÊs personal notes and the records of the case.
(Report on the Judi-
740
cial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch

55, Himamaylan City, Negros Occidental, 484 SCRA 99,
cited in Duque v. Garrido, 580 SCRA 321). In fact, if the
parties fail to submit memoranda within the given periods,
the judge should still decide the case. (Bendesula v. Laya,
58 SCRA 16)
§ 20. Define and give the scope of the right to
„speedy disposition of cases‰
Speedy disposition of cases is a relative term, a flexible
concept consistent with delays and depends upon the
circumstances of each case. The right is available before all
judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies. Likewise,
arbitrary and oppressive delays is not only confined to an
accused in a criminal proceeding but extends to all parties
in all cases. (Cadalin v. POEAÊs Administrator, 238 SCRA
721 citing Caballero v. Alfonso, Jr., 153 SCRA 153)
§ 21. Purpose of the mandatory continuous trial
system
Its purpose is to minimize delay in the processing of
cases in the trial courts. This delay was attributed to the
common practice of piecemeal trial of cases that sets cases
for trial one day at a time and thereafter continued or
postponed to another date until all the parties have
finished their presentation of evidence. It was designed to
expedite the resolution of cases in the trial courts by
holding trials on scheduled dates without needless
postponements and terminating the entire proceedings
within ninety days from the initial hearing. (Matias v.
Plan, 293 SCRA 532, Bendesula v. Laya, 58 SCRA 16)
§ 22. Scope of the constitutional right to speedy
disposition of cases
It is not limited to the accused in criminal proceedings
but extends to all parties in all cases, including civil and
administrative cases and in all proceedings, including
judicial and
741
VOL. 682, 741
quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any

party to a case may demand expeditious actions on all
officials who are tasked with the administration of justice.
(Lopez, Jr. v. Office of the Ombudsman, 364 SCRA 569)
§ 23. A person may be held liable for damages for
violation of the right of the accused to speedy trial
By express provision of the New Civil Code. Art. 32,
paragraph 16, a person may be held liable for damages for
violation of the right of the accused to speedy trial. It says:
Any public officer or employee, or any private individual,
who directly or indirectly obstructs, defeats, violates or in
any manner impedes or impairs any of the following rights
and liberties of another person shall be liable to the latter
for damages: xxx (16) The right of the accused to be heard
by himself and counsel, to be informed of the nature and
cause of the accusation against him, to have a speedy and
public trial, to meet the witnesses face to face, and to have
compulsory process to secure the attendance of witness in
his behalf.
§ 24. What is the policy of the Supreme Court when a
litigant intentionally prolongs litigation?
It has always frowned upon any scheme to prolong
litigations and treble costs may be imposed upon litigants
who abuse judicial processes. (Tumibay v. Soro, 618 SCRA
169)
§ 25. If the judge could no longer perform his duty,
owing to physical difficulty or ailment, what must
he do?
He should apply for early retirement instead of clinging
to his post at the expense of the litigants and the public in
general. (Impao v. Makilala, 178 SCRA 541, Re: Judicial
Audit in RTC-Br. 24, Ipil, Zamboanga del Sur; Br. 2,
Isabela, Basilan, and MCTC, Labason, Zamboanga del
Norte, 303 SCRA 208).
742

In fact, in one case, a suggestion for retirement was made

for a judge who summoned a person in his chambers after
the latter took his pictures while entering his sala. After
investigation, the judge was found out to be suffering from
an incurable malady which impairs his locomotion and
speech and shortness of temper (Kalalang v. Fernandez, 39
SCRA 418). In another case, the Supreme Court held that
poor health may be considered as a mitigating
circumstance in an administrative case, but it will not
exculpate the judge. The demands of public service cannot
abide the illness of the judge. (Office of the Court
Administrator v. Butalid, 293 SCRA 589, Imbang v. Del
Rosario, 443 SCRA 79. See also Re: Report of Deputy Court
Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferrada, Re: Judicial Audit
Conducted in the RTC, Br. 26, Argao, Cebu, 452 SCRA 125)
§ 26. What is the Speedy Trial Act of 1998?
This act requires that the accused must be arraigned
within thirty (30) days from the filing of the information
against him. However, this rule is not absolute. Section 10
of the same law enumerates periods of delay that shall be
excluded in computing the time within which trial must
commence. Thus: Any period of delay resulting from a
continuance granted by any justice of judge motu proprio or
on motion of the accused or his/her counsel or at the
request of the public prosecutor, if the justice or judge
granted such continuance on the basis of his/her findings
that the ends of justice served by taking such action
outweigh the best interest of the public and the defendant
in a speedy trial. No such period of delay resulting from a
continuance granted by the court in accordance with this
subparagraph shall be excludable under this section unless
the court sets forth, in the record of the case, either orally
or in writing, its reasons for findings that the ends of
justice served by the ranting of such continuance outweigh
the best interests of the public and the accused in a
743
VOL. 682, 743

speedy trial. (Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. How, 338
SCRA 511)
§ 27. Effect of undue delay in the disposition of cases
It undermines the public faith and confidence in judges.
It can raise speculations on the impartiality of the judge. It
also tarnishes the good image of the judiciary, lowers its
standards and brings it into disrepute and blemishes its
stature. (Report on the Audit and Inventory of Cases in the
RTC, Branch 11, Balayan, Batangas, 234 SCRA 502, Re:
Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., 247 SCRA 519, Viaje v. Hernandez,
346 SCRA 162, Unitrust Development Bank v. Caoibes, Jr.,
409 SCRA 394, Balsamo v. Suan, 411 SCRA 189, Re: Report
on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial
Court, Branch 134, Makati City, 510 SCRA 14, Mondala v.
Mariano, 512 SCRA 585, Reyes v. Paderanga, 548 SCRA
244, Mina v. Mupas, 555 SCRA 44, Biggel v. Pamintuan,
559 SCRA 344)
§ 28. Scope of the speedy disposition rule
The constitutional mandate to promptly dispose of cases
does not only refer to the decision of cases on their merits,
but also to the resolution of motions and other interlocutory
matters, as the constitutional provisions explicitly mention
„cases‰ and „matters‰. (De Vera v. Layague, 341 SCRA 67.
See also Pernea vs. Montecillo, 109 SCRA 424, Vda de
Ochoa v. Tolentino, 118 SCRA 222)
§ 29. The absence of a transcript of stenographic
notes does not toll the running of the ninety (90)
day period to render a decision or any
interlocutory matter
The absence of a transcript of stenographic notes does
not toll the running of the ninety (90) day period to render
a decision or any interlocutory matter because judges are
required
744

to take down notes and to proceed in the preparation of

decisions, even without the transcript of stenographic
notes. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Walerico
B. Butalid, 293 SCRA 589, Re: Judge Danilo M. Tenerife,
255 SCRA 184, Celino v. Abrogar, 245 SCRA 304)

§ 30. If a judge fails to decide a case or resolve any
matter before him within the ninety (90) day
period, what does this constitute
The failure of a judge to decide a case within the ninety
(90) day period constitutes gross inefficiency and it is
inexcusable. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Benedicto,
296 SCRA 62, Sabado v. Cajigal, 219 SCRA 800, Spouses
Dumaua v. Ramirez, 465 SCRA 1). In fact, delay in the
disposition of even one case constitutes gross inefficiency
which the Supreme Court cannot tolerate. (Report on the
Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in the Metropolitan Trial
Court, Br. 40, Quezon City, 331 SCRA 627. Note: In this
case, a city judge resigned because she was so pre-occupied
with the illness of her husband who eventually died. As a
result, she was not able to cope up with her duty to decide
cases on time)
§ 31. Factors to consider in the determination of the
proper penalty for failure of a judge to decide a
case on time
The factors to consider in the determination of the
proper penalty for failure to decide a case on time are: (a)
the number of cases not decided on time, (b) the presence of
aggravating or mitigating circumstances, (c) the damage
suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, (d) the
health and age of the judge and (e) other reasonable and
valid grounds. (Juson v. Mondragon, 532 SCRA 1,
Longboan v. Polig, 186 SCRA 557, Diputado-Baguio v.
Torres, 211 SCRA 1, Medina v. De Guia, 219 SCRA 153,
Sabado v. Cajigal, 219 SCRA 800, Mamamayan ng Zapote
I, Bacoor, Cavite v. Balderian, 265 SCRA 360,
745
VOL. 682, 745

Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-lapu

City, 289 SCRA 398, Saylo v. Rojo, 330 SCRA 243, Gallego
v. Doronila, 334 SCRA 339, Re: Report on the Judicial
Audit Conducted in the RTC-Br. 37, Lingayen, Pangasinan,
336 SCRA 344, Request for Assistance Relative to Special
Proceedings No. 28 Pending at RTC Br. 55, Negros

Occidental by Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr., 355 SCRA 62,
Columbres v. Madronio, 454 SCRA 185, Tam v. Regencia,
493 SCRA 26, Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br.
14, Davao City, Presided Over by Judge William M.
Layague, 552 SCRA 1)
§ 32. What constitutes „an unreasonable length of
time‰?
It depends upon the circumstances of each particular
case and that „the sound discretion of the court‰ in the
determination of said question „will not be disturbed, in the
absence of patent abuse‰; that the burden of showing abuse
of judicial discretion is upon the appellant since every
presumption is in favor of the correctness of the courtÊs
action.‰ Likewise, the concept of promptness is a relative
term and must not unnecessarily be an inflexible one. It
connotes an action without hesitation and loss of time. As
to what constitutes the term is addressed to the
consideration of the trial court, bearing in mind that while
actions must be disposed of with dispatch, the essential
ingredient is the administration of justice and not mere
speed. (Belonio v. Rodriguez, 466 SCRA 557)
§ 33. Penalty for undue delay in the resolution of a
case, motions and pending incidents
Sec. 9(1), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by
A.M. No. 01-10-SC, provides that undue delay in rendering
a decision or order is classified as a less serious charge,
which, under Section 11 (B), is punishable by suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for not less
than one (1) more than three (3) months, or a fine of not
more than
746

P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00 (Pacquing v.

Gobarde, 521 SCRA 464, Gonzales v. Torres, 528 SCRA 490,
Re: Administrative Matter No. 05-8-244 MTC, 546 SCRA 1).
However, penalties in other cases vary, depending on
certain factors and circumstances that tend to mitigate or
aggravate the liability of the judge. Thus:

1. In Magdamo v. Pahimulin, 73 SCRA 110, a judge
was imposed a fine in a sum equivalent to three (3)
months salary for failure to terminate and remand
with dispatch the preliminary investigation of a
frustrated homicide case. This was aggravated by a
finding that the judge lacked due care in the
preparation of his Certificates of Service.
2. In Escabillas v. Martinez, 78 SCRA 367, the
respondent judge was only reprimanded for inaction
of a civil case, five (5) months after it was submitted
for resolution.
3. In Baguyo v. Leviste, 107 SCRA 35, the judge
was only admonished for delay in rendering a
decision, one hundred seventy four (174) days after it
was submitted for resolution.
4. In Lagaret v. Bantuas, 114 SCRA 603, the judge
was imposed a fine in an amount equivalent to thirty
(30) days salary, with warning, for failure to decide a
civil case within the ninety (90) day period, despite
his claim that he is handling more than 1,000 cases in
two courts.
5. In Ubarra v. Tecson, 134 SCRA 4, the judge was
imposed a fine equivalent to three (3) months salary
for failure to resolve four (4) motions in a civil case for
almost one (1) year.
6. In Bentulan v. Dumatol, 233 SCRA 168, an RTC
judge was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for failure to
resolve a civil case for eight months after it was
submitted for decision.
747
VOL. 682, 747

7. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Javellana,

438 SCRA 1, the respondent judge was imposed a fine
of P20,000.00 for failure to decide thirty eight (38)
cases, aside from nineteen (19) cases with pending
motions for resolution, within the mandatory ninety
(90) day period. While he decided them later, it was
done only after the judicial audit was conducted. The

Supreme Court held that a judge cannot choose his
deadline for deciding cases. Failure to decide even a
single case within the ninety (90) day period
constitutes gross inefficiency.
8. In Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical
Inventory of the Record of Cases in RTC, Br. 43,
Roxas, Mindoro Oriental, a judge was dismissed from
the service for failure to act upon twelve (12) criminal
cases and fourteen (14) civil cases for more than three
(3) years. The Audit Team also found out that the
judge conducted infrequent court sessions and on
those days, he was tardy.
9. In Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 22, Manila, 438
SCRA 111, a judge was imposed a fine of P40,000.00
for failure to resolve seventy eight (78) criminal cases
and thirty two (32) civil cases within the ninety (90)
day period. The penalty was aggravated by failure of
the judge to comply with show cause orders from the
Supreme Court which is constitutive of gross
misconduct and insubordination.
10. In Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 136, Makati City,
442 SCRA 414, a judge was imposed a fine of
P20,000.00 for failure to decide six (6) cases and
twenty five (25) pending incidents within the ninety
(90) day period, despite the fact that he resolved the
incidents later, prior to his retirement.
11. In Heirs of Crisostomo Sucaldito v. Cruz, 336
for
748

failure to resolve a motion for inhibition, one hundred

thirteen (113) days after it was submitted for
resolution. The judge never refuted nor commented on
the complaint.
12. In Office of the Court Administrator v.

Alumbres, 479 SCRA 375, the respondent RTC judge
was imposed a fine of P50,000.00 for undue delay in
rendering decisions and orders. He failed to decide
113 criminal cases and 41 civil cases within the
mandated 90 day period before he retired. He also
failed to resolve 87 criminal and civil motions in
various cases, despite his explanation that he has
been afflicted with diabetes mellitus and benign
prostatic hypertrophy and one of his stenographers
suffered a stroke. He was earlier imposed a fine of
P5,000.00 for failure to decide an ejectment case that
was appealed to his court because the ejectment case
was not signed by either the parties or their counsel
and it was subsequently dismissed. Besides, he
pointed out that he was the topnotcher in the
disposition of cases in the four salas of RTC Las
Pinas. (Meris v. Alumbres, 369 SCRA 1)
13. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Go, 534
SCRA 156, a municipal judge was suspended for three
(3) months without salary and benefits for failure to
immediately arraign the accused in 632 cases, to
archive 140 criminal cases; to act on summons issued
in 477 criminal cases; to act on 13 criminal cases
which have further setting and to resolve pending
incidents in 15 criminal cases.
14. In Casia v. Gestopa, Jr., 312 SCRA 204, the
judge resolved a motion for intervention in an
ejectment case (which is a prohibited pleading) after
four (4) months due to heavy caseload and that he is
not the regular judge assigned to the court. He was
imposed a fine of P1,000.00 with warning that a
repetition of the same will be dealt with more
severely. Thus, in a subse-
749
VOL. 682, 749

quent case involving the same judge, in Saceda v.

Gestopa, Jr., 372 SCRA 193, he was imposed a fine of
P10,000.00 for failure to decide an ejectment case on

time, without offering any explanation for such delay.
15. In Ala v. Ramos, Jr., 381 SCRA 540 and Isip,
Jr. v. Nogoy, 400 SCRA 181, two (2) judges were
imposed a fine of P10,000.00 respectively for failure to
resolve a motion within the prescriptive period,
despite an allegation of a heavy case load.
16. In Re: Request of Judge Sylvia G. Jurao for
Extension of Time to Decide Criminal Case No. 5812
Before the RTC-Brs. 10 & 12, San Jose, Antique, 407
SCRA 464, the judge requested extension of time to
decide twenty eight (28) pending cases. She was
granted sixty (60) days to do so but she still failed to
resolve eight (8) cases due to health problems, heavy
caseload, voluminous records and the court was
understaffed. She was ordered to pay a fine of
P10,000.00.
17. In Perez v. Andaya, 286 SCRA 40, a judge was
reprimanded for failure to resolve a motion within the
reglementary period despite the fact that he is
carrying a heavy case load of two (2) salas.
18. In Re: Report of Justice Felipe B. Kalalo, 282
SCRA 61, a judge was reprimanded for failure to
decide twenty two (22) cases despite the fact that he
is only an Acting Judge in that sala.
19. In Castillo v. Cortes, 234 SCRA 398, a judge
was ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 for rendering a
decision in a criminal case after two (2) years and
seven (7) months from the time it was submitted for
resolution. The reason for the delay is that the
stenographer failed to transcribe the stenographic
notes due to her early retirement caused by an
arthritic right elbow.
20. In Alfonso-Cortes v. Maglalang, 227 SCRA 482,
a judge was also ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 for
de-
750

lay in rendering a decision in a civil case despite his

defense that the he was presiding in two (2) courts
and the case involved a difficult question of law which
required extensive research on his part.
21. In Diputado-Baguio v. Torres, 211 SCRA 1, a
judge was ordered to pay a fine of P20,000.00 for
delay in resolving four (4) cases despite the following
defenses: congestion of court dockets; lack of
necessary personnel; his detail in other courts and his
illness.
22. In De la Cruz v. Serrano, 339 SCRA 558, a
judge was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for more than
one year delay in the resolution of a civil case for
recovery of possession, removal of improvement and
damages, despite his allegation that complainantÊs
counsel requested for several postponements.
Quinanola, 317 SCRA 38, a judge was imposed a fine
of P40,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement pay
for failure to resolve twelve (12) cases and forty one
(41) interlocutory matters despite his poor health. He
was then suffering from intra-cerebral hematoma.
This transgression was compounded when he
continued to collect his salaries upon certification that
all cases and motions pending before him had been
decided within the reglementary period.
Municipal Trial Court, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, 282
for failure to decide three (3) cases before he retired.
25. In Re: Judge Fernando P. Agdamag, 254 SCRA
644, a judge was imposed a fine of P40,000.00 for
failure to decide two hundred fifty (250) cases beyond
the prescribed period, despite his allegation that
there is no regular clerk of court in his sala.
751
VOL. 682, 751

26. In Re: Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., 247 SCRA 519,
a judge was imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for failure to

decide four (4) cases within the prescribed period. The
penalty was mitigated due to his advance age, failing
health and diligence in trying to finish all pending
cases before his retirement and he had the lowest
number of pending cases of all the RTC judges of
Laoag City, Ilocos Norte. (See also Secretary of Justice
v. Bidin, 41 SCRA 742, where diligence was
considered as a mitigating circumstances in the
imposition of the penalty)
27. In Medina v. De Guia, 219 SCRA 153, a judge
was dismissed from the service with forfeiture of all
her benefits due to her failure to decide a motion on
the mandated period. This was aggravated by her
defiance of a Supreme Court directive mandating her
to return the records of a case.
28. In Castro v. Malazo, 99 SCRA 164, a judge was
reprimanded for failure to decide a case on time
despite an overload of cases in two salas where he is
presiding.
29. In Beduya v. Alpuerto, 96 SCRA 673, a judge
was reprimanded and admonished for failure to
promulgate a decision in a case within three (3)
months after the case was submitted for decision.
30. Re: Inventory of Cases in the RTC Br. 11,
Balayan, Batangas, 234 SCRA 502, a judge was
ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 for delay in the
disposition of a case despite the fact that he was
hospitalized for ten days due to pneumonia.
31. In Adriano v. Sto. Domingo, 202 SCRA 447, a
judge was imposed a fine of P10,000.00 for deciding a
civil case three (3) years after it was submitted for
decision. His defense is that he merely inherited the
case from two other judges and there were missing
transcript in the records.
752

32. In Asinas, Jr. v. Trinidad, 242 SCRA 710, a city
judge was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for

promulgating a decision in a criminal case (unjust
vexation and malicious mischief) after a delay of one
year and seven months.
33. In Penera v. Dalocanog, 104 SCRA 194, a judge
was merely reprimanded and admonished despite
failure to decide an ejectment case for three years.
The case became moot and academic because of a
motion to dismiss filed by the defendant.
34. In Awa-ao v. Sison, 93 SCRA 686, a judge was
imposed a fine equivalent to one (1) month salary for
resolving a motion beyond the prescribed period,
despite his defense that he was not able to resolve the
motion because he inhibited himself from hearing the
case.
35. In Louis Vuitton S.A. v. Villanueva, 216 SCRA
121, a judge was reprimanded for not deciding a case
on time, despite his defense that the prosecution
made a mistake in charging the proper offense. In
other cases involving the same judge, he was again
reprimanded for the same offense (Spouses Lorenzo
and Ana Labayen v. Judge Francisco Villanueva,
MTJ-96-1107, July 13, 1998), he was imposed a fine of
P5,000.00 in another case involving the same
infraction (Report On the Spot Judicial Audit
Conducted In the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch
36, Quezon City, 313 SCRA 25), while in still another
case, he was imposed a fine of P10,000.00 plus
suspension for one year without pay also for the same
offense (Yu-Asensi v. Villanueva, 322 SCRA 255). He
was also imposed a fine of P40,000.00 for gross
immorality and conduct unbecoming a judge for
having an extramarital affair. (National Bureau of
Investigation v. Villanueva, 370 SCRA 1). He was
again imposed a fine of P40,000.00 in still another
case for undue delay in deciding a case and gross
ignorance of the law, despite his retirement. (Adriano
v. Villanueva, 397 SCRA 627)
753
VOL. 682, 753
36. In Reyes v. Paderanga, 548 SCRA 244, a judge

was imposed a fine of P15,000.00 for incurring
nineteen (19) days of delay in deciding an appeal from
the lower court despite his defense that he had many
cases for trial and decision at the time he assumed
office.
37. In Balsamo v. Juan, 411 SCRA 189, a judge
was imposed a fine of P15,000.00 for resolving the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction one year
after the last date of hearing.
38. In Gonzales v. Hidalgo, 401 SCRA 343, a judge
was imposed a fie of P10,000.00 for deciding a civil
case three (3) years after it was submitted for
decision.
39. In Samson v. Mejia, 404 SCRA 94, an RTC
judge was imposed a fine of P11,000.00 for one year
and more than seven (7) months delay in deciding a
civil case for annulment of contracts, owing to the
untimely death of his daughter and that he is also the
acting Presiding Judge of another sala.
40. In Visbal v. Buban, 395 SCRA 584, a judge was
imposed a fine of P11,000.00 for failure to resolve a
motion to correct and remark exhibits, for almost
eight (8) months from the date it was filed.
41. In Cabahug v. Dacanay, 410 SCRA 413, a judge
was imposed a fine of P11,000.00 for resolving a
motion for reconsideration two hundred thirty one
days (231) days after it was submitted for resolution.
42. In Visbal v. Sescon, 409 SCRA 293, a judge was
also imposed a fine of P11,000.00 for failure to decide
a case within the ninety day period despite his
defense that he inherited the case from his
predecessor-Judges and that there are no transcript of
stenographic notes.
43. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia-
Blanco, 488 SCRA 109, a retired judge was imposed a
fine P15,000.00 to be deducted from her retirement
754

benefits because she failed to decide three (3) cases

and eleven (11) motions within the reglementary
period.
44. In Morta v. Bagagnan, 415 SCRA 624, a judge
was imposed a fine of P11,000.00 for not resolving a
motion for contempt at all.
45. In Abarquez v. Rebosura, 285 SCRA 109, a
municipal judge was dismissed from the service for
delay or inaction of cases ranging from more than one
(1) year to almost eleven (11) years from the date the
cases were submitted for decision, despite a very
manageable case load.
46. In In Re: Cases Left Undecided by Judge
Bumanglag, Jr., 306 SCRA 50, a judge was imposed a
fine of P2,000.00 for failure to decide ten (10) cases
within the 90 day period before he retired from the
service, despite an acute prostate ailment.
47. In Reaport v. Mariano, 361 SCRA 1, a judge
was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for setting a
preliminary conference eighty four (84) days after an
Answer was filed, in violation of the Rules on
Summary Procedure.
48. In Bontuyan v. Villarin, 388 SCRA 11, a judge
rendering a decision in a criminal case for theft. He
never denied the charge of delay nor did he justify it
either but simply remarked that the case has long
been decided.
49. In Ancheta v. Antonio, 231 SCRA 74, a judge
rendered a decision in a forcible entry case, four (4)
years after it was submitted for decision. He was
imposed a fine of P10,000.00.
50. In Mappala v. Nunez, 240 SCRA 600, a judge
was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for rendering a
decision in a criminal case for illegal possession of
firearms beyond the ninety (90) day period.
755
VOL. 682, 755

51. In Re: Judge Jose F. Madara, 104 SCRA 245, a

judge was severely censured for noncompliance with
the ninety (90) day period in rendering a decision in a
civil case. Worse, his decision is dated January 18,
1977 but it was served on the defendants only on
September 17, 1997.
52. In Jakosalem v. Cordovez, 58 SCRA 11, a judge
was censured for delay in giving assistance to a
person who wanted to file a case of grave oral
defamation.
53. In Saylo v. Rojo, 330 SCRA 243, a judge was
imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for resolving a motion for
the issuance of a writ of replevin beyond the ninety
(90) day period.
54. In Ganzon II v. Ereno, 333 SCRA 6, a judge was
fined P3,000.00 for failure to resolve a case involving
an electoral protest within the ninety (90) day period
although the case was first assigned to two other
judges before him.
55. In Lotino v. Hernandez, 333 SCRA 1, a
municipal judge was also imposed a fine of P3,000.00
for resolving a forcible entry case beyond the ninety
(90) day period despite a heavy caseload.
56. In Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted
in the RTC, Branch 68, Camiling Tarlac, 305 SCRA
61, a judge was imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for failure
to resolve cases within the ninety day period despite
his explanation that his lack of action was due to his
recurring illness and hospitalization as reflected in
his leaves of absence.
57. In Bendesula v. Laya, 58 SCRA 16, a judge was
admonished for deciding a case ten (10) months after
the extended period of filing Memoranda, despite the
following explanations: he supervised all court
personnel, both old and new; his court is
undermanned; there is no Deputy Clerk of Court; his
Researcher acts as court inter-
756

preter; he had to research in a library that is sixty

seven (67) kilometers away from his courtroom at his
own expense; he had to repair his chambers; he had
to partially hear cases in two other salas and that the
parties had not submitted their respective
Memoranda. The Supreme Court held that with or
without the Memorandum of the parties, he has to
decide the case.
58. In Report in the Judicial Audit Conducted in
the MTCC – Branches 1, 2, & 3, Mandaue City, 406
SCRA 285, two judges were imposed a fine of
P20,000.00 each for undue delay in deciding cases
within the prescribed period, despite the following
factors: sheer volume of work; physical and mental
demands of the multiple jobs in two salas as
Executive Judge and Acting Presiding Judge; absence
of Branch Clerk of Court and Legal Researcher and
other constraints and limitations inherent in the job
of a judge.
59. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Ulibarri,
P15,000.00 for failure to decide twenty six (26) cases
despite the following explanation: the former
presiding judge left a heavy case load; majority of the
cases she failed to decide were heard by the former
judge and a pairing judge; her added responsibilities
as a presiding judge of a family court was simply
overwhelming, especially because she nor her staff
never received additional training for the added
responsibilities. In a related case, it was held that
where the regular presiding judge is already present
and performing her functions in court, it is improper
for the pairing judge to still render a decision in a
pending case without the approval of the former (See
Tabora v. Carbonel, 621 SCRA 196). Corollarily, a
pairing judge must not decide a case on the merits if
any party objects thereto. (Ramirez v. Corpuz-
Macandog, 144 SCRA 462)
60. In Gonzales v. Bantolo, 488 SCRA 300, a judge

re-
757
VOL. 682, 757

solving a motion for reconsideration for more than

two (2) years.
61. In Longboan v. Judge Polig, 186 SCRA 557, a
judge was dismissed from the service for failure to
resolve 35 cases beyond the ninety (90) day
reglementary period. This happened even before his
suspension for retaining case folders in his
possession. This was aggravated by the fact that the
judge impeded the speedy disposition of cases by his
successor for missing records of cases.
62. In Concerned Trial Lawyers of Manila v.
Veneracion, 488 SCRA 286, a retired judge was still
imposed a fine of P11,000.00 for failure to decide
certain cases due to illness, before he retired.
in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 3, 5, 7, 60 and
61, Baguio City, 422 SCRA 408, two judges were
imposed a fine of P20,000.00 respectively for failure to
decide eleven (11) cases for decision and resolving four
(4) motions, while the other one failed to decide
twenty six (26) cases beyond the reglementary period
while two others were imposed a fine of P10,000.00
for failure to decide a criminal case beyond the ninety
day period, while the other judge incurred delay in
the resolution of four (4) cases within the
reglementary period.
64. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Noynay,
P20,000.00 for failure to resolve fifty six (56) cases
despite his explanation that he inherited half of the
unresolved cases from his predecessor; intermittent
electrical brownout; physical indisposition due to age
and operation of both eyes and sometimes, reading
and studying causes mental blackout on his part.
65. In Del Mundo v. Gutierrez-Torres, 471 SCRA

152, a judge was imposed P20,000.00 for resolving a
Mo-
758

tion To Dismiss in an ejectment case, more than

eleven (11) months beyond the reglementary period.
66. In The Secretary of Justice v. Bullecer, 56 SCRA
24, a judge was admonished for failure to decide a
civil case and two criminal cases within the ninety
(90) day period even if he honestly overlooked the
expediente of the case.
67. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Quizon,
376 SCRA 579, a retired judge was imposed a fine of
P5,000.00 for failure to decide over a hundred civil
and criminal cases within the prescribed period
despite the fact that he had to hear cases in two other
courts of Mindoro; that he had to travel over rough
roads in two towns which are 62 kilometers apart
from each other and that he was diagnosed to have an
„end stage renal disease‰.
68. In De la Cruz v. Serrano, 339 SCRA 558, a
case of recovery of possession and damages, one (1)
year and five (5) months after it was submitted for
decision.
69. In Request Peter Ristig for Assistance
Regarding the Delay in the Proceedings of Criminal
Case No. 95227-R Entitled „People of the Philippines
versus Henry Uy‰, Pending at MTCC, Branch 6, Cebu,
P15,000.00 for delay in the resolution of a criminal
case despite his explanation that he inherited 2,322
cases and lack or unavailability of a public prosecutor
and some case folders were concealed from him by his
former Clerk of Court.
70. In Sabado v. Cajigal, 219 SCRA 800, a judge
was dismissed form the service for failure to decide a
case of quieting of title which was concluded in 1984.

At the time of the rendition of the judgment of
dismissal against him in 1993, he failed to decide the
same despite several directives from the Supreme
Court.
759
VOL. 682, 759


in RTC, Branches 29, and 59, Toledo City, 292 SCRA
8, a judge was imposed a fine of fifty thousand
(P50,000.00) pesos for failure to decide several
criminal cases, three (3) of them involving detention
prisoners, before he retired from the service.
72. In Surigao CitizensÊ Movement for Good
Government v. Coro, 262 SCRA 285, a municipal trial
court judge was dismissed from the service for not
resolving cases for preliminary investigation (at a
time said right was still exercised by municipal
judges), which has been pending for three (3) to seven
(7) years.
73. In Hilario v. Concepcion, 327 SCRA 96, a judge
was imposed a fine of P3,000.00 for resolving a motion
for inhibition six (6) months after it was filed.
74. In Beltran, Jr. v. Paderanga, 407 SCRA 475, a
judge was imposed a fine of P1,000.00 for nine (9)
months delay in resolving an Amended Formal Offer
of Exhibits, allegedly because he misplaced the
records of the case.
75. In Alfonso-Cortes v. Maglalang, 227 SCRA 482,
a judge was ordered to pay a fine of P5,000.00 for
failure to decide a civil case within the ninety (90) day
period allegedly because it took him a long time to
resolve as to whether the „Daily Record‰ is a
newspaper of general circulation in the province.
76. In Alonto-Frayna v. Astih, 300 SCRA 199, a
judge was dismissed from the service for failure to
decide a case of partition, within the prescribed period
and up to the time of the court audit. His explanation
is as follows: bleeding peptic ulcers, hypertension,

bronchial asthma, bronchitis and rheumatism.
the Regional Trial Court, Bacolod City, Branch 46,
then Presided by Judge Emma C. Labayen, 393 SCRA
519, a re-
760

tired judge was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for failure

to decide five (5) cases and nine (9) incidents within
the prescribed period, despite the following
explanations: no transcript of stenographic notes; she
had operation for breast cancer, ovary, cervix and
fallopian tube, which might have caused forgetfulness
and the parties manifested their intent to settle the
case.
78. In Re: Report on the Monitoring of Cases in the
RTC, Br. 64, Labo, Camarines Norte, 396 SCRA 4, a
decide forty nine cases within the reglementary
period, aggravated by previous administrative
infractions in the past like gross inefficiency and
serious misconduct.
79. In Bonifacio Law Office v. Bellosillo, 394 SCRA
65, a judge was imposed a fine of P11,000.00 for delay
in rendering a judgment for almost one year in an
ejectment case. His defense is that he waited for the
defendants to avail themselves of their right to appeal
the order deeming the case submitted for resolution.
80. In Martin v. Guerrero, 317 SCRA 166, a judge
was imposed a fine of P1,000.00 for failure to rule
promptly on complainantÊs Omnibus Motion. The
explanation of the judge that he opted to inhibit
himself from further proceeding with the case did not
justify the delay.
81. Re: Report in the Judicial Audit conducted in
the RTC-Branch 220, Quezon City, 360 SCRA 242, a
judge was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 to be taken
from his retirement benefits for failure to decide

fifteen (15) cases beyond the ninety (90) day period
while no further action was undertaken for five (5)
cases. He was imposed the penalty despite his claim
that he had several major surgical operations which
he had to undergo for colon cancer. He also alleged
that a year prior to his retirement, three (3) members
of his family had succumbed to colon
761
VOL. 682, 761

cancer·a younger brother in the month of March, a

younger sister in June and his own mother in October.
82. In Quintero v. Ramos, 341 SCRA 679, a judge
was imposed a fine of P1,000.00 for failure to decide a
civil case ten months after it was submitted for
resolution, despite his defense of poor health and
heavy pressure of work.
83. In Request of Judge Irma Zita V. Masamayor,
RTC Br. 52, Talibon, Bohol for Extension of Time to
Decide Crim. Case No. 96-185, 308 SCRA 553, a judge
case involving a violation of the Dangerous Drugs Act
within the ninety day period despite her explanation
that the case involves a study of voluminous files and
difficult questions of law. The same judge was
imposed a fine of P12,000.00 for failure to decide a
murder case on time even if it „involves legal
questions‰. (Request of Judge Irma Zita Masamayor,
RTC, Br. 52, Talibon, Bohol for Extension of time to
Decide Crim. Case No. 96-251, 328 SCRA 584)
84. In Re: Report on Audit and Physical Inventory
of the Records and Cases in the RTC, Br. 120,
Kaloocan City, 238 SCRA 248, a judge was dismissed
from the service for failure to decide ninety one (91)
cases beyond the reglementary ninety (90) day period.
His explanation that he suffered a mild stroke and
high blood pressure plus long brownouts was not
taken into account by the Supreme Court. This was
aggravated by the previous record of the judge where

he submitted false certificates of service. In an earlier
case, the same judge was imposed a fine of P5,000.00
for not acting on a civil case after the lapse of three
(3) years from the time it was deemed submitted for
decision. (In Re: Letter of Mr. Octavio Kalalo, 231
SCRA 403)
85. In Bernardo v. Fabros, 307 SCRA 28, a judge
was imposed a fine of P3,000.00 for failure to decide
an
762

ejectment case, one month beyond the reglementary

period to decide a case. Her explanation that her
failure to decide the case on time was due to
„oversight‰ was held unacceptable by the Supreme
Court.
86. In Tauro v. Colet, 306 SCRA 340, a judge was
imposed a fine of P10,000.00 for deciding a case for
violation of Art. 125 of the Revised Penal Code on
three counts beyond the ninety (90) day period. He
cited excuses like: he inherited the case from another
judge; he was detailed to other courts like Pasay City,
Quezon City and La Trinidad, Benguet, and forgot
about the case later; lacking transcript of
stenographic notes and oversight. All his excuses
were held unjustified by the Supreme Court.
87. In Bartolay v. Belarmino, 140 SCRA 38, a judge
was severely censured, reprimanded and warned for
failure to resolve a motion to declare defendants in
default, within the prescribed ninety (90) day period .
He alleged that this failure to resolve the motion was
due to voluminous work and oversight.
88. In Sanchez v. Eduardo, 361 SCRA 233, a judge
was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for failure to resolve
an election protest involving Barangay positions,
within fifteen (15) days from the filing thereof,
pursuant to the Omnibus Election Code. He did not
decide the case within the time frame allegedly

because of the representation of the parties that they
have reached a settlement regarding the case.
89. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Butalid,
293 SCRA 589, a Regional Trial Court judge was
dismissed from the service for failure to decide a total
of ninety six (96) cases within the ninety (90) day
reglementary period. This was aggravated by another
case filed against him for falsely stating in his
certificates of service that he had decided all cases
submitted for resolution, when in fact, this is not true.
Though he ex-
763
VOL. 682, 763

plained that his failure to decide the cases on time

were attributed to the fact that he was suffering from
diabetes for the past seven (7) years; that some cases
were inherited from his predecessors without
complete transcripts of stenographic notes and that
he suffered a mild stroke, the Supreme Court held
these reasons untenable because he could have
retired voluntarily if he found it difficult to discharge
his functions.
90. In Corporate Managers and Consultants, Inc. v.
Acosta, 113 SCRA 281, a judge was only admonished
for resolving a motion after the lapse of more than
eight (8) months, since it is his first offense.
91. In Adriano v. Villanueva, 397 SCRA 627, a
criminal case, one year and six moths after it was
deemed submitted for decision. The fine imposed was
high because he was also charged and found guilty
with simple misconduct and gross ignorance of the
law.
92. In Sena v. Villarin, 328 SCRA 644, a judge was
imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for four (4) months delay
in resolving defendants Notice of Appeal and
complainants motion for execution
93. In Unitrust Development Bank v. Caoibes, Jr.,

P40,000.00 when he failed to resolve a motion to
dismiss for almost two (2) years. He blamed the
inefficiency of his Clerk of Court but the Supreme
Court ruled that he cannot hide behind the
inefficiency or irresponsibility of his court personnel.
94. In Re: Judge Danilo M. Tenerife, 255 SCRA 184,
a municipal judge was imposed a fine of P10,000.00
for failure to decide seventy three (73) cases left by
his predecessor who was promoted to the Regional
Trial Court, despite his defense that the
stenographers were frequently ill and unable to work.
In another case, the
764

Supreme Court ruled that with or without the

transcribed stenographic notes, the ninety day period
for deciding cases should be adhered to. Thus, an RTC
judge was dismissed from the service for certifying in
his Certificate of Service that all special proceedings,
petitions and motions in all civil and criminal cases
have been decided, when in fact, they were not. (Re:
Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory
of the Record of Cases in RTC, Branch 43, Roxas,
Mindoro Oriental, 236 SCRA 631. See also In Re:
Impeachment of Flordeliza, 44 Phil. 608)
95. In Lambino v. De Vera, 275 SCRA 60, a judge
failed to resolve twenty six (26) criminal cases and
four (4) civil cases which were submitted for decision
in 1989, 1991, 1992 and 1993. He was dismissed from
the service.
in the Regional Trial Courts of Kidapawan, Branches
17 and 23, Kabacan, Branches 16 and 17, North
Cotabato, 403 SCRA 130, a judge was imposed a fine
of P20,000.00 for failure to decide four (4) civil cases
and three (3) criminal cases. The explanation of the
judge that he inherited the cases and the designation

of his court as a heinous crimes court rendered him
unable to decide the cases with dispatch, was not
heeded by the Supreme Court.
RTC, Brs. 29, 56 & 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur,
P2,000.00 to be taken from his retirement pay for
failure to decide a civil case. His defense is that the
defense counsel did not a file a motion for a ruling on
their offer of evidence which was found unsatisfactory
by the Supreme Court.
Madronio, Sr., 451 SCRA 206, a judge was imposed a
fine of P20,000.00 because he admitted that he: (a)
failed to decide eighteen (18) cases within the
prescribed period; (b)
765
VOL. 682, 765

failed to resolve motions in five (5) cases within the

prescribed period; (c) failed to take initial action upon
eighty (80) cases; (d) failed to further act upon
pending incidents in eight one (81) cases and (e) failed
to make further settings in sixty one (61) cases
despite the lapse of an unreasonable length of time.
The judge reasoned out that he had cardiac ailment
and a heavy case load but the Supreme Court did not
consider these reasons to warrant leniency
considering that he was also sued for the same
infraction in the past.
99. In Lawan v. Moleta, 90 SCRA 579, a judge was
reprimanded and admonished for rendering a decision
after a period of one hundred twenty eight (128) days
from the time it was submitted for decision.
100. In Gallego v. Doronilla, 334 SCRA 339, a
judge was imposed a fine of P10,000.00 for his
inaction in a case of forcible entry for seven (7)
months.
101. In Bank of the Philippine Islands v. Generoso,

P10,000.00 for deciding an unlawful detainer case one
(1) year and six (6) months after it was submitted for
decision.
102. In Vda. De Castro v. Cawaling, 481 SCRA 535,
a judge was imposed a fine of P10,000.00 for deciding
in two forcible entry cases, eight months after it was
submitted for decision, despite his claim that this is a
mere harassment suit against him.
in the Regional Trial Court, Branches 4 and 23,
Manila, and Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 14,
Manila, 291 SCRA 10, a Regional Trial Court judge
and a Metropolitan Trial Court judge were imposed a
fine of P10,000.00 each for failure to decide seven (7)
and fifteen (15) cases respectively within the ninety
(90) day reglementary period. The gross inefficiency of
the Metropolitan Trial Court judge was aggravated
when he kept seven cases
766

even after his retirement, hence an additional

P10,000.00 fine was also imposed against him.
104. In Mina v. Mupas, 555 SCRA 44, a judge was
imposed a fine of P10,000.00 for undue delay in
resolving two (2) motions beyond the reglementary
period, i.e., eight (8) months for two motions and
seven (7) months for the motion to declare defendants
in default.
105. In Ang v. Asis, 373 SCRA 91, an RTC judge
was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 in not acting speedily
in a case involving a mayoral election protest.
106. In Echaves v. Fernandez, 377 SCRA 277, a
judge was imposed a fine of P1,000.00 for delay in
resolving a Motion to Dismiss in a civil case, within
the ninety (90) day period, despite his explanation
that he was also designated as acting presiding judge
in other branches, in addition to his original station.

in the RTC, Branch 69, Silay City, 357 SCRA 798, a
decide seven (7) cases before he retired. His
explanation regarding the unavailability of transcript
of stenographic notes was held unmeritorious by the
Supreme Court.
108. In Re: Report on the Audit and Inventory of
Cases in RTC, Branch 55, Alaminos, Pangasinan, 262
for failure to act in one (1) criminal case and twenty
one (21) civil cases before he retired from the service.
109. In Re: Inventory of cases in the RTC Branch
11, Balayan, Batangas, 234 SCRA 502, a judge was
imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for failure to act on
thirteen (13) criminal cases and sixteen (16) civil
cases, despite his explanation that he has pneumonia
and moderately advanced tuberculosis.
767
VOL. 682, 767

110. In Re: Judge Liberato Cortes, 242 SCRA 167, a

decide two (2) criminal cases for more than two (2)
years despite the lack of a stenographer and a
courtroom as well as inadequacy of reference
materials and small office space.
111. In Soyangco v. Maglalang, 196 SCRA 5, a
decide a B.P. 22 case for more than five (5) years,
despite an Affidavit of Desistance filed by the
complainant.
112. In Perez v. Concepcion, 321 SCRA 284, a judge
a motion to quash for one (1) year in a case which falls
under the Rules on Summary Proceedings.
113. In Sulla v. Ramos, 341 SCRA 157, a judge was
imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for failure to decide a case
of acts of lasciviousness for more than two (2) years.

His explanation of heavy pressure of work and poor
health and his indefinite designation as an acting
judge of another sala was not heeded by the Supreme
Court.
114. In Balayo v. Buban, Jr., 314 SCRA 16, a judge
civil case within the ninety (90) day period even if he
had another designation as acting presiding judge of
another vacant sala.
115. In Navarro v. Del Rosario, 270 SCRA 264, a
judge was imposed a fine of P8,000.00 for not deciding
a case of slight physical injuries for more than three
(3) years, despite his claim that the case was totally
heard by his predecessor, who was transferred to
another sala.
116. In Hernandez v. De Guzman, 252 SCRA 64, a
case of illegal recruitment, four (4) years after it was
submitted for resolution. To cap it all, the
complainant was
768

awarded only P5,000.00 by way of indemnification for

damages after four years.
117. In Balagot v. Opinion, 195 SCRA 429, a judge
was imposed a fine of P10,000.00 for rendering a
decision in a criminal case for more than three (3)
years after it was submitted for decision. His defense
of lack of transcript of stenographic notes and that he
was designated in the court seven (7) months after
the case was submitted for decision was not
considered by the Supreme Court.
118. In Monfort Hermanos Agricultural
Development Corporation v. Ramirez, 355 SCRA 477,
a judge was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for delay of
four (4) months in rendering a decision in a civil case.
The alleged cause of the delay is that the parties filed
numerous voluminous pleadings, motions and papers.

The Supreme Court held this explanation
unjustifiable.
119. In People v. Asaali, 267 SCRA 140, a judge
was severely reprimanded for prolonged inaction over
a period of three (3) years on a case submitted for
decision.
in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dingle-Duenas,
Iloilo, 280 SCRA 637, a judge was imposed a fine of
P10,000.00 for failure to decide twenty eight (28)
cases submitted to him for decision before his
retirement.
121. In Basa Air Base Savings & Loan Association,
Inc. v. Pimentel, 387 SCRA 542, a judge was imposed
a fine of P1,000.00 for failure to decide two theft cases
within the ninety (90) day period, despite the fact that
he merely inherited the cases.
122. In Ala v. Ramos, Jr., 381 SCRA 540, a judge
an action for attorneyÊs fees within the reglementary
period.
123. In Office of the Court Administrator v. Trocino,
523 SCRA 262, a judge was suspended from office for
769
VOL. 682, 769

three (3) months. In the audit of cases, the Office of

the Court Administrator found out that the court had
one hundred thirty one (131) cases submitted for
decision which had not been decided within the ninety
(90) day period. Likewise, the court had twenty four
(24) motions for resolution and one hundred nineteen
(119) cases remained unresolved for a considerable
length of time and twenty five (25) cases with no
initial action since the time of filing. The judge
explained that the delay was caused by the following:
absent or incomplete transcript of stenographic notes;
he only inherited the cases; he has only been in office
for eight (8) months and came to know of the delay

after the judicial audit and a heavy case load. The
Supreme Court held these explanations
unsatisfactory.
124. In City of Cebu v. Gako, Jr., 554 SCRA 15, a
civil case, nine (9) months after it was submitted for
decision.
in RTC-Br. 26, Manila, Presided by Judge Guillermo
L. Loja, 362 SCRA 382, he was imposed a fine of
P2,000.00 for failure to decide cases within the
reglementary period, even if he is presiding in two
salas, and he was even number one of the Top 10
Judges in 1999 with respect to the disposal of cases.
126. In Concillo v. Gil, 389 SCRA 487, a judge was
imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for deciding a land
registration case after the lapse of almost three years
from the time it was submitted for decision.
127. In DBP v. Layague, 552 SCRA 1, a judge was
imposed a fine of P80,000.00 who has been fined twice
in the past for undue delay in deciding cases.
128. In Lao v. Mabutin, 557 SCRA 411, a municipal
trial court judge was imposed a fine of P11,000.00 for
770

undue delay in transmitting the records of a case to

be appealed to the Regional Trial Court. Though, this
is primarily the duty of a clerk of court, the judge was
held liable because it is his responsibility to promptly
carry out the transmittal of cases within fifteen (15)
days from receipt of the notice of appeal.
129. In Lagamon v. Paderanga, 558 SCRA 50, a
judge was imposed a fine of P2,000.00 for delay in
deciding a case of rape despite his explanation that
his court is the only Regional Trial Court in the
province; he has no Clerk of Court; the PAO lawyer is
only available on Mondays and Fridays and the
stenographer is not computer literate, who relies

heavily on typewriters.
130. In In Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 6, Tacloban City, 581
for failure to take action on 92 criminal cases and
failed to decide 34 cases before he retired.
131. A judge was imposed a fine of P40,000.00 for
undue delay in the resolution of twelve cases, despite
the fact that he suffered a stroke. He could have
asked for extension of time to resolve the pending
cases if he was sick. (Office of the Court Administrator
v. Asaali, 588 SCRA 273)
132. A judge was dismissed from the service
because sixty one percent (61%) of her case load was
not being acted upon. (Re: Report on the Judicial
Audit Conducted in the Municipal Circuit Court,
Jimenez-Sinacaban, Misamis Occidental/Judge
Priscilla Hernandez, 592 SCRA 566)
133. A judge was imposed a fine of P20,000.00
because he decided a civil case four years after the
first extension was granted to him and two years after
the court denied his seventh request for extension.
(Request of Judge Nino A. Batingana, RTC, Br. 6,
Mati, Davao Ori-
771
VOL. 682, 771

ental for Extension of Time to Decide Civil Cases Nos.

2063 and 1756, 613 SCRA 1. The same judge was
imposed another fine of P25,000.00 for delay in
rendering a decision. See Request of Judge Nino A.
Batingana, RTC, Br. 6, Mati, Davao Oriental for
Extension of Time to Decide Civil Case No. 2049, 622
SCRA 8)
failure to decide 43 cases before he retired. (Re: Cases
Submitted for Decision Before Hon. Meliton G.
Emuslan, Former Judge, Regional Trial Court,
Branch 47, Urdaneta, Pangasinan, 616 SCRA 280.

The same penalty was imposed on another judge who
also failed to decide 43 cases before he retired. See
Office of the Court Administrator v. Quilatan, 631
SCRA 425)
failure to decide an ejectment case on time because as
assisting judge, she only shares a room and a table
with another office staff and because of the very acute
space problem, litigants wait for the call of their cases
in the adjacent public market or in a nearby plaza.
(Sarmiento v. Lindayag, 626 SCRA 292)
136. Another judge was imposed a fine of
P15,000.00 for resolving a motion to dismiss one year
after it was submitted for resolution. (Vera Cruz v.
Villegas, 627 SCRA 19)
failure to decide one hundred two (102) criminal cases
and forty three (43) civil cases before he retired.
(Office of the Court Administrator v. Leonida, 639
SCRA 697)
772


resolving a motion one year after it was filed owing to
the fact that he was the only acting RTC judge within
his district comprising of two cities and three
municipalities. (Angelia v. Grageda, 641 SCRA 554)
undue delay in resolving an ejectment case for five (5)
years. (Naguiat v. Capellan, 646 SCRA 122)
140. For undue delay in rendering an order to
resolve a motion for reconsideration citing a lawyer
for contempt and delay in forwarding the records to
the Court of Appeals after a Notice of Appeal was
filed, a judge was imposed a fine of P15,000.00
(Bareng v. Daguna, 650 SCRA 18)
141. For resolving a motion for reconsideration
after eight months, a judge was only admonished,

with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or
equivalent acts will be dealt with more severely. (Villa
v. Ayco, 653 SCRA 701)
142. A judge was suspended for two months
without salary and other benefits for undue delay in
rendering a pre trial order. He issued the order four
months after while the rule provides that it should be
issued ten days after the pre-trial conference. (Alviola
v. Avelino, 547 SCRA 160)
delay in rendering a decision in a malicious mischief
case. The case was submitted for decision in 2002 but
it was only decided in 2010. (Cabasares v. Tandinco,
Jr., 659 SCRA 396)
144. A judge was dismissed from the service (after
incurring two other warnings in the past) for having
deliberately delayed for two years the disposition of a
criminal case. (Yu v. Consolacion-Serrano, 113 SCRA
450)
145. A judge who later became a justice of the
Sandiganbayan was imposed a fine of P20,000.00 for
failure to decide eighteen cases within the mandatory
ninety day period, even after he was granted fourteen
months extension. (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit
773
VOL. 682, 773

Conducted in the RTC-Branch 37, Lingayen,

Pangasinan, 336 SCRA 344)
failure to resolve pending incidents in three criminal
cases. The incidents were only acted upon after he
was administratively charged before the Ombudsman
and the Office of Court Administrator. (De la Cruz v.
Bersamira, 336 SCRA 353)
147. An RTC judge was imposed a fine of
P20,000.00 despite handling two courts and an illness
for failure to decide cases within the required period.
(Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC,

Brs. 87 and 98, Quezon City, 338 SCRA 141)
148. A municipal judge was imposed a fine of
P1,000.00 for failure to decide a forcible entry case on
time, despite the fact that she was on sick leave.
(Quilal-lan v. Delos Santos, 338 SCRA 653)
149. A municipal trial court judge was imposed a
fine of P5,000.00 for failure to decide a criminal case
involving a violation of a municipal ordinance. The
case was filed in June 1996 but after one year, the
status of the case is still unclear. (Bunyi v. Caraos,
339 SCRA 696)
150. Two municipal judges were separately
imposed a fine of P3,000.00 each for the delay in the
promulgation of a decision in a criminal case (one for
unjust vexation) and the other one for trespass to
dwelling. (Paredes v. Manalo, 244 SCRA 64 and Cruz
v. Pascual, 244 SCRA 111)
P10,000.00 for resolving a murder case for more than
one and half years from the time it was submitted for
decision, owing the fact that when a pipe from the
upper floor leaked in his chamber, his records were
transferred to the Office of Clerk Court compounded
by the fact that he had to share
774

his sala with a newly organized branch. (Lopez v.

Alon, 254 SCRA 166)
152. Another RTC judge was imposed a fine of
P25,000.00 for having more than one hundred case
unresolved within ninety days. (Re: Judicial Audit
and Inventory of Cases in RTC of Davao City, 260
SCRA 333)
P2,000.00 for resolving an election protest one year
and seven months after it was submitted for decision.
(Mamamayan ng Zapote I, Bacoor, Cavite v.
Balderian, 265 SCRA 360)

154. A judge misplaced the notes he had taken of
the proceedings; he encountered difficulty in having
the transcript of stenographic notes transcribed and
he decided cases of other courts, but he incurred delay
in deciding his own cases. He was severely
reprimanded. (Re: Judge Evelyn Corpuz-Cabochan,
265 SCRA 467)
P10,000.00 for delay in deciding cases simply because
he forgot them and later resigned to run for public
office. (Re: Report on Audit and Physical Inventory of
the Records of Cases in MTC of Penaranda, Nueva
Ecija, 276 SCRA 257)
156. An RTC judge was only admonished for
failure to resolve cases within the ninety day period
because he has poor and unbearable working
conditions. His office was actually a stock room which
did not provide ample space for eleven employees and
several steel cabinets filled with old dusty records of
the Multi-Sala Court. (Rivera v. Lamorena, 280 SCRA
633)
157. A municipal judge was only severely
reprimanded for failure to resolve a civil case that is
covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure in due
time since he was handling multiple assignments.
(Ruperto v. Banquerigo, 293 SCRA 704. A similar
penalty was also im-
775
VOL. 682, 775

posed on another judge. His penalty was mitigated

because he was handling multiple court assignments.
See Luna v. Mirafuente, 471 SCRA 1)
158. An RTC judge was imposed a fine of P5,000.00
for failure to promptly decide an incident in civil case
(for Annulment/Rescission of a Deed of Sale). The case
was filed in 1978. The incident cropped up in 1996.
(Peralta v. Cajigal, 316 SCRA 165)
159. Despite his compulsory retirement, a judge

a civil case on time despite his explanation that the
interests of both parties will not be prejudiced,
anyway the defendant is in possession of the property
subject of the case and the plaintiff will be
compensated later. (Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted in RTC, Brs. 29, 56 & 57, Libmanan,
Camarines Sur, 316 SCRA 272)
160. The suspension of a judge was lifted for a
previous infraction because he was suffering from
organic brain syndrome, hypertension with cerebral
infraction and central retinal vein occlusion of the left
eye and he subsequently retired. However, he was
imposed a total fine of P40,000.00 for failure to decide
cases on time. (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and
Physical Inventory of Rending Cases in MTCC, Br. 1
and RTC, Br. 57, Lucena City, 319 SCRA 507)
161. A judge was allowed to receive retirement
benefits but he was imposed a fine of P20,000.00 for
failure to decide 19 cases within the ninety day
reglementary period. (Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted in Branch 34, RTC, Iriga City, 324 SCRA
397)
failure to decide an ejectment case for several years
owing to the effectivity of the Rule on Summary
Procedure. (Millare v. Valera, 325 SCRA 434)
776


P2,000.00 for failure to decide a case of consolidation
of ownership, recovery of possession and damages on
time because he gave priority to cases of detention
prisoners. (Mosquera v. Legaspi, 335 SCRA 326)
164. After an audit team was formed, a city judge
was imposed a fine P10,000.00 for failure to decide
cases within the reglementary period. He readily
accepted full responsibility for his inability to decide

thirty eight (38) criminal cases and four (4) civil cases
by admitting that he was negligent. (Office of the
Court Administrator v. Salva, 336 SCRA 133)
P20,000.00 for failure to resolve a case of quieting of
title, seven months after it was submitted for decision
despite his various explanations. He invoked a heavy
case load; his branch is newly created and had
problems recruiting personnel; his legal researcher
took a leave of absence to prepare for the Bar
Examinations and that he suffered a stroke and he
had to be confined in the hospital. (Luzarraga v.
Meteoro, 337 SCRA 152)
failure to decide a criminal case on time due to
inadvertence and because of a heavy case load.
(Esguerra v. Loja, 338 SCRA 1)
P10,000.00 for failure to decide eight civil cases
within the mandatory period provided for by law,
allegedly due to inadvertence and oversight. (Report
on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 20,
Manila, 342 SCRA 587)
for deciding an attempted homicide case, five years
from the time it was submitted for decision despite
the fact the judge was afflicted with a grave illness
and that the fact that she also had to take care of her
sister and
777
VOL. 682, 777

brother who were both suffering from some disability.

(Ricafranca, Jr. v. Lopez, 344 SCRA 583. The same
judge was again imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for
failure to decide a damage suit within the
reglementary period. See Maquiran v. Lopez, 359
SCRA 40)

P1,000.00 for failure to decide a BP 22 case within the
90 day period allegedly due to a pending amicable
settlement between the parties. (Seares v. Salazar,
345 SCRA 308)
170. A municipal judge was admonished for failure
to decide two civil cases on time due to the
voluminous records. (Bonilla v. Gustilo, 345 SCRA
315)
P5,000.00 for deciding an ejectment case four months
(instead of one month) after it was submitted for
decision. (Tanoco v. Sagun, Jr., 674 SCRA 32)
P5,000.00 for rendering a judgment in an ejectment
case beyond the thirty day period, despite his
allegation that the defendant had already vacated the
premises. The Office of the Court Administrator
recommended a fine of P10,000.00 but it was reduced
to P5,000.00 considering his long years of service in
the judiciary. (Tanoco v. Sagun, Jr., 674 SCRA 32)
P5,000.00 for failure to decide nineteen (19) counts of
violation of BP 22 and one count of estafa within the
reglementary period despite motions to resolve filed
by the complainant. (Floro v. Paguio, 346 SCRA 1)
174. Another municipal judge was imposed a fine
of P5,000.00 for deciding a forcible entry case way
beyond the thirty day period. (Villanueva, Jr. v.
Estoque, 346 SCRA 230)
778


for delay in deciding a civil case despite his
explanation that the delay was caused by a technical
problem of their office computer. (Gil v. Janolo, Jr.,
347 SCRA 6)
delay in resolving an unlawful detainer case within

the reglementary period simply because a motion for
inhibition was filed against him. (Cruz, Jr. v. Joven,
350 SCRA 70)
for failure to resolve a civil case within the
reglementary period, despite an explanation of a
heavy work load and his being an Executive Judge.
(Montes v. Bugtas, 356 SCRA 539)
P10,000.00 because the hearing of an election protest
was kept dormant for almost six months. (Dela Cruz
v. Pascua, 359 SCRA 569)
for delay in rendering a decision in a murder case
allegedly because of the failure of the prosecution to
file its Memorandum and that his personal notes were
either lost or torn from the records. (Guillas v. Munez,
363 SCRA 701)
180. An RTC judge was admonished for resolving a
motion to dismiss a case, eight months after it was
filed because the court records were misplaced.
(Sianghio, Jr. v. Reyes, 363 SCRA 716)
181. A city judge was reprimanded for failure to
decide an ejectment case within the reglementary
period due to inadvertence and the onset of the
Christmas rush. (Philippine Geriatrics Foundation,
Inc. v. Layosa, 364 SCRA 287)
P1,500.00 for failure to decide two criminal cases
within
779
VOL. 682, 779

the reglementary period, before he retired. (Report on

the Judicial audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial
Court, Bongabon, Nueva Ecija, 365 SCRA 601)
183. A judge was imposed a fine of P3,000.00 when
he failed to decide three criminal cases and two civil
cases, despite asking for a second extended period of

90 days to decide them because the stenographers
failed to complete the transcription of the transcript
of stenographic notes. (Re: Request of Judge Francisco
L. Calingin, RTC-Br. 22, Cagayan de Oro, for
Extension of 90 days to Decide Criminal Cases, 368
SCRA 1)
failure to decide cases within the reglementary
period, despite the fact that he had a heavy caseload
and he was handling three (3) other courts. (Report on
the Judicial Audit in the MTCs of Calasiao, Binmaley,
Sta. Barbara & Mapandan and in MCTC of Tayug-
San Nicolas, Pangasinan, 368 SCRA 500)
185. A former Presiding Justice of the
Sandiganbayan was imposed a fine of P20,000.00 and
he was relieved of his duties as such in order to
devote himself exclusively to decision writing in order
to resolve and decide one hundred ninety eight (198)
cases that are submitted for decision. (Re: Problem of
Delays in Cases Before the Sandiganbayan, 370 SCRA
658. Motion for Reconsideration denied with Finality
in 375 SCRA 339)
issuing a notice to all litigants suspending the
hearing of cases in his court until after the
designation of an acting judge, in view of his transfer
to the National Commission on Indigenous Peoples as
Regional Hearing Officer. (In Re: Notice Issued by
Judge Agapito K. Laoagan, Jr., MTC, La Trinidad,
Benguet, Suspending the Hearing of Cases in his
Court, 371 SCRA 401)
780


P15,000.00 for delay in deciding a forcible entry case,
despite a motion for judgment on the pleadings. The
judge explained that the cause of the delay is because
the complainant expressed her willingness to settle

the case amicably. (Bangco v. Gatdula, 378 SCRA 534)
188. A presiding judge of the Sharia Circuit Court
was imposed a fine of P5,000.00 for delay in deciding
a criminal case (it was filed on April 15, 1996 but it
was decided only on March 1, 2000), because he found
it difficult to reconcile P.D. 1083 and those of the
QurÊan and the Hadith of the Holy Prophet. (Arap v.
Mustafa, 379 SCRA 1)
P1,000.00 for rendering a decision in an ejectment
case fifteen (15) months after it was submitted for
decision. (Oliveros v. Carteciano, 380 SCRA 240)
failure to resolve a motion for reconsideration in a
civil case for damages and attorneyÊs fees on time
despite his explanation that the records of the case
was inadvertently misplaced owing to the optional
retirement of the court interpreter. (Buenaflor v.
Ibarreta, Jr., 381 SCRA 518)
191. An RTC judge was suspended from office for
six months without pay and other benefits not only
for delay in deciding cases but also for gross
misconduct and making untruthful statements in his
Certificate of Service. (Office of the Court
Administrator v. Sayo, Jr., 381 SCRA 659)
P5,000.00 for undue delay in resolving a writ of
preliminary mandatory injunction. There was
urgency in the case because the plaintiffs wanted to
be re-admitted in the school (AMA Computer College
in Quezon City)
781
VOL. 682, 781

where they were expelled. (Domondon v. Lopez, 383

SCRA 376)
193. A city judge was reprimanded for delay in
deciding an unlawful detainer case despite his claim
of heavy workload; he is also the acting presiding

judge of another branch and a fire which destroyed
the courthouse. (Tierra Firma Estate and
Development Corporation v. Quintin, 383 SCRA 508)
194. An RTC was admonished for failure to act
within the reglementary period a motion for the
lifting of a writ of preliminary injunction. (Golangco v.
Villanueva, 384 SCRA 305)
P1,000.00 because of his admission that he incurred
delay in deciding an election protest. (Bajet v. Baclig,
385 SCRA 343)
196. An RTC judge was dismissed from the service
with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to
reemployment in any government branch or
instrumentality including government owned or
controlled corporations for failure to resolve and
decide many civil and criminal cases, despite a
request for extension to decide them and because they
were inadvertently overlooked and despite the fact
that he would bring home court records to work on
them. (Re: Report of Bernardo Ponferrada Re Judicial
Audit Conducted in Br. 21, RTC Cebu City·Judge
Genis B. Balbuena, Presiding, 385 SCRA 490)
and was further admonished for deciding two criminal
cases for qualified theft, eighteen (18) months after it
was submitted for decision despite his defense that he
only „inherited‰ the cases. (Basa Air Base Savings &
Loan Association, Inc. v. Pimentel, Jr., 387 SCRA 542)
782


P10,000.00 for failure to decide cases on time because
of the fault of the person in charge of criminal cases.
(Report on the On-The-Spot Judicial Audit Conducted
in the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Teresa-Baras,
Rizal, 389 SCRA 1)
199. An RTC judge was reminded of her duty to

decide cases with reasonable dispatch in a special
civil action for certiorari where her order was
annulled and set aside. (China Banking Corporation
v. Perello, 389 SCRA 241)
P5,000.00 for delay in deciding a civil case despite his
claim that after he assumed office, cases submitted
for decision piled up one after the other. (Concillo v.
Gil, 389 SCRA 487)
P10,000.00 for failure to resolve a motion for
execution on time even if he claimed that the delay
was caused by plaintiff Ês constant change of lawyers
which resulted in confusion in the mailing of court
orders and notices of hearing. (Hoehne v. Plata, 390
SCRA 555)
P10,000.00 for failure to decide cases in his
September 2000 monthly report of cases, despite his
defense that he has a heavy caseload and he has to
attend to other assignments in Region 9 (Mindanao)
provinces. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Eisma,
391 SCRA 10)
P5,000.00 for deciding a simple ejectment case for
four years. (Magallon v. Paraguya, 392 SCRA 580)
P20,000.00 for not issuing a warrant of arrest against
an accused in a murder case. She only issued the
warrant of arrest after the administrative case
against her was filed. (Con-
783
VOL. 682, 783

cerned Citizen of Maddela v. Dela Torre-Yadao, 393

SCRA 217)
P5,000.00 for her failure to decide five civil cases on
time and nine other incidents in civil cases. (Report on

the Judicial audit Conducted in the RTC, Bacolod
City, Br. 46, then Presided by Judge Emma C.
Labayen, Retired, 393 SCRA 519)
206. A city judge was imposed a fine of P11,000.00
for rendering judgment in an ejectment case for
almost a year from the time the case had been
submitted for decision. (Bonifacio Law Office v.
Bellosillo, 394 SCRA 65)
207. An Associate Justice of the Sandiganbayan
resolving a motion for Jinggoy Estrada to be allowed
to administer his motherÊs oath of office. (In the
Matter of the alleged Improper Conduct of
Sandiganbayan Associate Justice Anacleto D. Badoy,
Jr., 395 SCRA 231)
208. An RTC Judge was imposed a fine of
P20,000.00 on his failure to decide seasonably nine
criminal cases and eight civil cases. His excuse is that
these cases were never brought to his attention before
he retired. (Re: Cases Left Undecided by Retired
Judge Antonio E. Arbis, RTC Branch 48, Bacolod
City, 395 SCRA 398)
P25,000.00 for not acting on a perjury case for nearly
two years allegedly because the deferment of any
action was requested by the complainantÊs counsel.
(Vda. de Danao v. Ginete, 395 SCRA 542)
210. An RTC judge was reprimanded for failure to
decide a criminal case for almost five years. (Pitchon
v. Rallos, 396 SCRA 124)
P3,000.00 for delay in deciding three criminal cases.
784

(Cea v. Paguio, 397 SCRA 494. The same judge was

imposed a fine of P5,000.00 in the earlier case of Floro
v. Paguio, 346 SCRA 1 for delay in deciding four
criminal cases)
P10,500.00 for delay in the deciding a criminal and a
civil case allegedly because he was waiting for the
submission of the Memorandum of the parties. (Office
of the Court Administrator v. Joven, 399 SCRA 18)
failure to decide 82 cases before he retired despite his
explanation that he had cirrhosis of the liver. (Re:
Judicial Audit Report Conducted in the RTC, Br. 17,
Kidapawan City, 399 SCRA 55)
214. A judge was held liable for undue delay in
rendering a decision but since he died two months
before the administrative case was resolved against
him, the Supreme Court considered the case closed
and terminated without giving any penalty. (Tiongco
v. Pedronto, 401 SCRA 431)
P20,000.00 for undue delay in deciding a forcible
entry case and gross ignorance of the law despite his
defense that aside from his court, he is also the
presiding judge of two other towns in the province
and that the facts of the case are complicated. (Gil v.
Lopez, Jr., 401 SCRA 635)
P10,100.00 for delay in resolving a motion for
reconsideration within the reglementary period.
(Custodio v. Quitain, 402 SCRA 58)
P20,000.00 for failure to decide an estafa case within
the period prescribed by law despite the fact that he is
also a presiding judge of another sala. (Re: Request of
Judge Roberto S.
785
VOL. 682, 785

Javellana, RTC Br. 59, San Carlos City for Extension

of time to Decide Civil Cases Nos. X-98 & RTC 363,
404 SCRA 373)

failure to decide 115 cases within the 90 day period.
(Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the
Municipal Trial Court, Bocaue, Bulacan, 407 SCRA 1)
219. A city judge was dismissed from the service
with forfeiture of all benefits and with prejudice to
reemployment in any government branch or
instrumentality including government owned or
controlled corporations for failure to decide hundreds
of cases pending before him, despite his explanation
that he has an undermanned staff, his cases tripled
when he was a pairing judge and simply admitted
that he failed to exercise the diligence required of his
position and apologized for it. (Report on the Judicial
Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in the
Metropolitan Trial Court of Manila, Branch 2, 408
SCRA 583)
P20,000.00 for failure to decide 26 cases despite the
lapse of the 90 day period, despite his explanation
that he is a presiding judge in two other court
branches. (Office of the Court Administrator v.
Andaya, 410 SCRA 47)
for delay or more than twenty months in resolving
three motions in a civil case for recovery of possession
and ownership, despite his explanation of a heavy
workload. (Aslarona v. Echavez, 412 SCRA 533)
222. A municipal judge was reprimanded for
failure to decide an election protest within the
reglementary period. (Teodosio v. Carpio, 424 SCRA
56)
223. An RTC Judge was imposed a fine of
P50,000.00 for failure to decide 70 criminal cases
within the period mandated by the Constitution,
despite his ex-
786

planation that he was designated as Acting Presiding

Judge of another sala for six months. (Report on the
Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Br. 22,
Kabacan, North Cotabato, 424 SCRA 206)
failure to resolve a motion for execution within the
reglementary period, despite his explanation, among
others, that they were having a semestral inventory
of records. (Montemayor v. Bermejo, Jr., 425 SCRA
403)
P15,000.00 for resolving a motion to quash a search
warrant four (4) months after it was filed. (Sabatin v.
Mallare, 426 SCRA 253)
P20,000.00 for failure to decide a civil case after
almost fifteen years. He was asked to explain but
failed to do so because his vision in both eyes started
deteriorating despite treatments and laser operations.
When he explained regarding the delay in the
disposition of the civil case, he said that it was caused
by postponements initiated by the parties; failure to
transcribe the testimonies of witnesses due to the
death of the stenographer and negotiations of the
parties for a settlement and implored the courtÊs
mercy for the long delay. (Office of the Court
Administrator v. Villegas, 430 SCRA 422)
failure to decide 29 criminal cases and 21 civil cases
within the 90 day period; to resolve within the
reglementary period pending incidents in said cases
and to take further actions in 92 cases. (Re: Report on
the Judicial Audit in the Regional Trial Court, Branch
71, Antipolo City, 434 SCRA 555)
228. An RTC judge was dismissed from the service
for failure to decide two civil cases for more than ten
(10) years. When he was assigned to Caloocan City
from
787
VOL. 682, 787
Zamboanga, he brought the case folders with him. It

was only after the administrative case was filed
against him that he decided the cases allegedly
because it was mixed up with other case folders.
(Fernandez v. Hamoy, 436 SCRA 186. Despite his
dismissal from the service, the same judge was also
imposed a fine of P20,000.00 in a later case for failure
to decide cases within the reglementary period. See
Office of the Court Administrator v. Hamoy, 448 SCRA
322)
229. Even if he is already retired, an RTC judge
was imposed a fine of P11,000.00 for failure to decide
twenty four (24) cases before he retired. He was also
imposed a fine of P21,000.00 for gross ignorance of the
law for promulgating a decision after he retired, even
if neither party complained about it. (Re: Report on
the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 15, Ozamiz City, 438
SCRA 363)
failure to act on and resolve various civil cases
because aside from his court, he is the presiding judge
four (4) other courts and sometimes he only holds
three hearing days in a month. (Report on the
Judicial Audit Conducted in the MCTC- Dapa,
Surigao del Norte, 439 SCRA 487)
for delay in the disposition of civil and criminal cases.
(Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the
Regional Trial Court, Branch 2, Iligan City, 440 SCRA
1)
P11,000.00 for failure to decide 69 cases before she
retired. (Office of the Court Administrator v. Espanol,
440 SCRA 332)
P15,000.00 for failure to render decisions in eight
cases and to resolve motions pending in three cases
before he retired, despite the fact that he was also an
acting judge
788

in another sala. (Office of the Court Administrator v.

Barroso, 440 SCRA 344)
for failure to decide 45 cases within the 90 day
reglementary period allegedly because of heavy
caseload, recurring stomach pains due to stress and
the failure of his Branch Clerk of Court to monitor the
movement and progress of cases. (Re: Report on the
Judicial Audit Conducted in the MTCC, Branch 6,
Bacolod City, 443 SCRA 425)
P10,000.00 for failure to render a decision in an
appealed ejectment case, after eleven months. (Reyes-
Garmsen v. Bello, Jr., 447 SCRA 377)
for failure to resolve a Motion for Reconsideration
within the reglementary period despite his
explanation that he has failing health and the
condition of his court docket. (Pesayco v. Layague, 447
SCRA 450)
P10,000.00 for failure to resolve several criminal and
civil cases before he retired, despite the fact that he
was the presiding judge of two other court branches.
(Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC,
Branches 2 and 31, Tagum City, 451 SCRA 605)
P15,000.00 for undue delay in rendering a decision in
a settlement of estate case. He offered no explanation
for the delay. (Belleza v. Cabarde, 451 SCRA 632)
failure to decide 55 civil cases and 31 criminal cases
within the reglementary period before he retired. He
explained that he was then suffering from internal
bleeding caused by ulcers triggered by stress and
overwork. (Re: Report of Deputy Court Administrator
Bernardo T.
789
VOL. 682, 789

Ponferrada, Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC,

Br. 26, Argao, Cebu, 452 SCRA 125)
reconsideration in a murder case. The judge explained
that the cause of the delay is merely an oversight
which could be attributable to the maze of record that
could not be properly kept, managed and reviewed
considering the limited space being occupied by the
court and the staff. (Espineli v. Espanol, 453 SCRA
96)
P20,000.00 for failure to decide an ejectment case
within the reglementary period, despite his claim that
he had additional workloads in other courts and lack
of typewriters. (Arcenas v. Avelino, 453 SCRA 202)
reconsideration of the dismissal of a case for
declaration of ownership and recovery of possession
and damages, allegedly due to inadvertence. (Claro v.
Efondo, 454 SCRA 218)
seven cases before he retired. He explained that the
delay was due to heavy volume of work, conduct of
daily hearings and lack of public prosecutors and
attorneys. (Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in
the Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Cebu City, 457
SCRA 1)
resolving a motion for reconsideration in a civil case
for more than one year. (Castillo v. Alonzo-Legasto,
461 SCRA 27)
P40,000.00 for delay in rendering a decision in an
estafa case. The penalty is high because he also

committed a
790

misdeclaration of one monthly report. (Tan v.

Estoconing, 462 SCRA 10)
P11,000.00 for issuing a writ of execution seventeen
months after the order of execution. He did not
explain the reason for the delay and it is therefore an
admission of the charge against him. (Dumaua v.
Ramirez, 465 SCRA 1)
247. An RTC judge was admonished for her failure
to decide a civil case within the reglementary period
due to heavy workload, the transfer of the Branch
Clerk of Court to the Office of the Provincial
Prosecutor and the difficulty encountered by the legal
researcher in studying some material points. (Chan v.
Lantion, 468 SCRA 37)
248. Although a municipal judge was found guilty
of delay in deciding a case, the case was dismissed
because he died while the administrative case was
being deliberated upon by the Supreme Court. (Re:
Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the
Municipal Trial Court of Tambulig, 472 SCRA 419)
for failure to decide two civil cases within the
reglementary period allegedly because of the
existence of a prejudicial question. (Wong Jan Realty,
Inc. v. Espanol, 472 SCRA 496)
undue delay in rendering decisions and Orders
despite his claim that he started to suffer illness
during the last year of his service in the judiciary. (Re:
Cases Left Undecided by Retired Judge Benjamin A.
Bongolan of the RTC, Br. 2, Bangued, Abra, 473 SCRA
428)
P20,000.00 for failure to decide a criminal case on

time before he retired allegedly because of the
voluminous re-
791
VOL. 682, 791

cords of the case. (Letter Dated Nov. 12, 2004 of Judge

Adolfo R. Malingan, Actg. Presiding Judge, MCTC,
Tuba-Sablan, Benguet, Mt. Province, 473 SCRA 434)
delay in deciding two civil cases because of the huge
number of cases pending before his court coupled with
limited resources of the court. (Re: Judicial Audit
Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch 54,
Lapu-Lapu City, 474 SCRA 455)
P20,000.00 and was further admonished to be more
diligent in the performance of his duty for delay in
deciding five criminal cases and two civil cases and in
failing to act upon twenty cases for an unreasonable
length of time, allegedly because of lack of computer
facilities and resource materials. (Office of the Court
Administrator v. Avelino, 477 SCRA 9)
failure to decide ten cases before he retired. (Report
on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch
18, Tagaytay City, 477 SCRA 403)
P10,000.00 for deciding a criminal case for more than
four years after it was submitted for decision, owing
to the ailment (lower back pains, hypertension and
pulmonary KockÊs disease) of the judge. (Cagas v.
Torrecampo, 518 SCRA 110)
P20,000.00 for failure to decide 35 cases despite
several extensions of time to do so because of
increasing work load and failing health. What
aggravated his malfeasance is that he failed to submit
proof of compliance with some directives of the
Supreme Court. (Report on the Judicial Audit

Conducted in the RTC-Br. 47, Urdaneta City, 481
SCRA 76)
792


P10,000.00 for failure to decide a motion to dismiss in
two forcible entry cases within the reglementary
period despite his claim that he has an additional
work as acting presiding judge in another court. (Vda.
De Castro v. Cawaling, 481 SCRA 535)
failure to decide one criminal case and one civil case
and various motions in other cases within the
reglementary period despite his claim that he was
also designated to preside in another court. (Re:
Judicial Audit of the RTC, Branch 14, Zamboanga
City, Presided Over by Hon. Ernesto R. Gutierrez, 482
SCRA 310)
P11,000.00 for failure to decide various cases and
resolve motions within the reglementary period
despite his claim that his court was designated as a
special tax court, family relations court and special
criminal court to handle heinous crimes and he
suffered a mild stroke later. (Concerned Trial Lawyers
of Manila v. Veneracion, 488 SCRA 285)
P5,000.00 for failure to decide a criminal case for
serious illegal detention within the reglementary
period despite her claim that she had to wait for the
transcript of stenographic notes to be transcribed.
(Tam v. Regencia, 493 SCRA 26)
failure to decide 15 cases within the prescribed period
even if she blamed the inefficiency of her staff for the
delay. (Request of Judge Fatima Gonzales-Asdala,
RTC-Br. 87, Quezon City for Extension Period to
Decide CC No. Q-02-46950 & 14 others, 494 SCRA

442)
failure to decide a criminal case for usurpation of real
793
VOL. 682, 793

property for more than five years. (Moncada v.

Cervantes, 497 SCRA 1)
263. A judge was imposed fine of P11,000.00 for
failure to render a decision in a barangay election
case within the reglementary period, despite his
heavy work load, numerous court assignments and
mild stroke. (Sanchez v. Alaan, 501 SCRA 11)
264. An RTC judge as suspended for three months
without pay for not acting on inherited cases which
have been pending since 1993, 1994 and 1995 or for
ten years. (Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and
Physical Inventory of Cases in the Regional Trial
Court, Br. 54, Bacolod City, 506 SCRA 505)
265. A judge was admonished and sternly warned
for failure to resolve three motions in a criminal case
beyond the 90 day period despite his claim of heavy
volume of work and the unavailability of the public
prosecutor. (Umale v. Fadul, Jr., 509 SCRA 19)
266. A municipal judge was dismissed from the
service for failure to act on practically all the cases
pending before his sala despite several extensions of
time to decide the cases and motions. This is
aggravated by 11 missing records and failure to
accurately make his monthly certificate of service and
report of cases. (Office of the Court Administrator v.
Legaspi, Jr., 512 SCRA 570)
failure to resolve two civil cases and five criminal
cases for more than one year despite asking for an
extension of time to decide them. (Mondala v.
Mariano, 512 SCRA 585)
268. Even if he has resigned, a municipal judge

incidents in an unlawful detainer case for one year
and nine months. (De la Cruz v. Vallarta, 517 SCRA
465)
794


failure to decide a civil case for more than five years
due to heart ailment and hyperacidity. (Lim, Jr. v.
Magallanes, 520 SCRA 12)
P3,000.00 for delay in the transmittal of a civil case
together with an order for inhibition to the Executive
Judge. (Kara-an v. Lindo, 521 SCRA 423)
a civil case, but he explained that the delay was not
intentional. (Pacquing v. Gobarde, 521 SCRA 464)
delay in deciding a civil case despite his failing
health, (heart ailment) and additional work as
Presiding Judge of another court. (Balajedeong v. Del
Rosario, 524 SCRA 13)
273. A judge was suspended from office for three
months without salary and other benefits for sitting
on a case for more than five months, then inhibited
himself thereafter. (Arcenas v. Avelino, 524 SCRA 618.
The same judge was suspended from office for three
months without pay in Bernaldez v. Avelino, 527
SCRA 11, for delay in the prompt disposition of an
unlawful detainer case)
delay in rendering a report and recommendation in
the investigation of a Sheriff for almost three years,
despite his claim that this is his first administrative
case in his more than 31 years of service in
government. (Office of the Court Administrator v.
Alon, 525 SCRA 786)

P50,000.00 for failure to decide 131 cases within the
reglementary period despite his various serious
ailments and that he had no branch clerk of court for
several years. (Office of the Court Administrator v.
Laron, 527 SCRA 45)
795
VOL. 682, 795


for failure to resolve a Demurrer to the Evidence
within the reglementary period, despite her
explanation that she has to attend to her added duties
as an Executive Judge and four vacancies in her
branch (i.e., clerk of court, legal researcher, sheriff
and stenographer). (Gonzales v. Torres, 528 SCRA
490)
failure to decide on time a case of murder and
frustrated homicide, allegedly because he just
inherited the case and the transcript of stenographic
notes have not been transcribed. (Galanza v. Trocino,
529 SCRA 200)
failure to decide on time, Petitions for Accreditation to
publish Legal and Judicial Notices. (Flaviano v.
Dinopol, 530 SCRA 787)
P10,000.00 by acting on the Information for 97 days
following its filing and taking him 87 days to resolve
the prosecutionÊs Ex Parte Motion for Reconsideration
and Motion for Inhibition. (In Re: Mino v. Navarro,
531 SCRA 271)
undue delay in resolving a Motion for Intervention
despite a claim for failing health. (Juson v.
Mondragon, 532 SCRA 1)
failure to decide 15 cases that were submitted for
decision, despite health problems. (Office of the Court

Administrator v. Janolo, Jr., 534 SCRA 262)
282. A municipal judge was severely censured for
deciding a case for homicide through reckless
imprudence, more than two years after it was
submitted for decision. (Singson, Sr. v. Villanueva,
101 SCRA 39)
796

283. Another municipal judge was admonished for

deciding a criminal case for nearly four years because
of a possible settlement of the criminal charges and
countercharges. (Flor v. Cruz, Jr., 101 SCRA 43)
284. A judge was severely censured and
reprimanded for delay of 143 days in deciding an
ejectment case because the stenographer went on
maternity leave and that the defendant filed the
administrative case to harass him. (Serra v.
Belarmino, 103 SCRA 421)
285. A judge was reprimanded and admonished for
deciding a forcible entry case after three years.
(Penera v. Dalocanog, 104 SCRA 193)
286. A judge was censured and warned for failure
to resolve a motion to dismiss in a civil case for almost
one year. He only resolved the motion when a motion
to resolve was filed by the plaintiff. (De Leon v.
Castro, 104 SCRA 241)
287. A judge was admonished for delay in deciding
a criminal case despite the fact that he has 1,000
pending cases in his court. (Moya v. Tensuan, 106
SCRA 550)
288. A judge was ordered to pay a fine equivalent
to one month salary for delay in deciding a civil case
and 23 other cases but he made it appear in his
certificate of service that there are no pending cases
for decision. (Secretary of Justice v. Legaspi, 107
SCRA 233)
289. A judge was imposed a fine equivalent to three
months salary for delay in deciding a land

registration case for three years. (Lamboloto v.
Garcia, 107 SCRA 594)
290. Another municipal judge was imposed a fine
equivalent to three months salary for undue delay in
deciding a forcible entry case which was filed 21 years
ago despite his claim of inadequacy of personnel and
unfavorable working conditions and destruction of
records due to floods. (Ferrer v. Lim, 108 SCRA 474)
797
VOL. 682, 797

291. An RTC judge was imposed a fine equivalent

to three months salary for failure to resolve a motion
in a civil case within the reglementary period. (Pernea
v. Montecillo, 109 SCRA 424)
292. A judge was admonished for failure to decide a
civil case within the reglementary period due a heavy
work load. (Laurel v. Cruz, 114 SCRA 1)
293. A judge was imposed a fine equivalent to
fifteen days salary for failure to decide an ejectment
case within the reglementary period despite his claim
of shortage of personnel and he himself transcribing
transcript of stenographic notes. (Shan, Jr. v.
Aguinaldo, 117 SCRA 32)
294. A city judge was suspended for three months
without pay and ordered to pay a fine equivalent to
three months salary for undue delay in resolving a
motion for reconsideration in an unlawful detainer
case (Vda. De Ochoa v. Tolentino, 118 SCRA 222)
295. A city judge was admonished for delay in the
resolution of a motion for preliminary injunction and
the principal case of forcible entry. (Salvador v.
Salamanca, 144 SCRA 276)
296. An RTC judge was imposed a fine equivalent
to six months salary for resolving a motion to require
joint survey for eleven months. He resolved the
motion after the administrative case was filed against
him. (Yu v. Paredes, 149 SCRA 28)

P5,000.00 and reprimanded for failure to decide a
criminal case for serious physical injuries thru
reckless imprudence within the reglementary period,
without any explanation. (Valencia v. Montemayor,
172 SCRA 60)
298. A municipal judge was imposed a fine
equivalent to one year salary for deciding an estafa
case five
798

years after it was submitted for decision. (Nidua v.

Lazaro, 174 SCRA 581)
299. An RTC judge was reprimanded for delay in
the resolution of a writ of injunction. (Aquino v.
Luntok, 184 SCRA 177)
300. A municipal judge was reprimanded and
warned for delay in the resolution of a motion to
dismiss in a criminal case of estafa because of the
barrage of motions that were filed and he
subsequently inhibited himself from the case later on.
(Cruz v. Basa, 218 SCRA 551)
301. A judge was imposed a fine of P1,000.00 for a
delay of five months in the resolution of motion for
the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in a
forcible entry case. (Dumaya v. Mendoza, 227 SCRA
488)
unreasonable delay in resolving an ejectment case
that falls under the Rule on Summary Procedure,
despite his other court assignments in the province of
Surigao del Norte as Presiding Judge. (Hipe v.
Literato, 671 SCRA 9)
··o0o··
© Copyright 2021 Central Book Supply, Inc. All rights reserved.

Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 682

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 682

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Supreme Court Reports Annotated Volume 682

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED VOLUME 682 4/5/21, 3:12 PM

SPEEDY DISPOSITION OF CASES

VOL. 682, 725

§ 11. The time line in deciding cases is applicable to

§ 21. Purpose of the mandatory continuous trial

726 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

§ 22. Scope of the constitutional right to speedy

The recent incident at the Cebu Palace of Justice

VOL. 682, 727

Unfortunately, he killed himself after the incident. Had

Finality in Re: Letter of Presiding Justice Conrado M.

728 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

3. Sandiganbayan·three (3) months (Re: Problem of

Time to Decide Criminal Case No. 4735-05, 611 SCRA 179,

VOL. 682, 729

SCRA 670, Raboca v. Pontanosas, Jr., 245 SCRA 293,

expeditious disposition of cases

730 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower

just, speedy and inexpensive determination of their cases

VOL. 682, 731

9. SC Administrative Circular No. 1-88.·Pursuant to

732 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SCRA 480, Office of the Court Administrator v. Dayon, 571

the rectification of wrong and the vindication of the

VOL. 682, 733

trial, and overhanging the entire process with the pall of

Trial Court, Branch 4, Dolores, Eastern Samar, 536 SCRA

734 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

No. Whether a case is simple or complicated, the

municipal trial court had an original caseload of one

VOL. 682, 735

was added as a result of the expanded jurisdiction of

736 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

VOL. 682, 737

§ 15. A judge cannot request for exemption from

738 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

SCRA 269, Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in

VOL. 682, 739

Decision Before Judge Damaso A. Herrera, Regional Trial

740 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

Speedy Disposition of Cases

cial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court, Branch

VOL. 682, 741

Speedy Disposition of Cases

quasi-judicial hearings. Hence, under the Constitution, any

742 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

In fact, in one case, a suggestion for retirement was made

VOL. 682, 743

speedy trial. (Solar Team Entertainment, Inc. v. How, 338

744 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

to take down notes and to proceed in the preparation of

255 SCRA 184, Celino v. Abrogar, 245 SCRA 304)

VOL. 682, 745

Report on the Judicial Audit in RTC, Br. 27, Lapu-lapu

Proceedings No. 28 Pending at RTC Br. 55, Negros

746 SUPREME COURT REPORTS ANNOTATED

P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00 (Pacquing v.