CASE 2016-0012: SPOUSES CESAR and THELMA SUSTENTO VS. JUDGE FRISCO T. LILAGAN, (A.M. No. RTJ-11-2275, 08 MARCH 2016, BERSAMIN, J. (SUBJECT/S: JUDICIAL ETHICS; DELAY IN RESOLVING CASES) (BRIEF TITLE: SUSTENTO VS. JUDGE LILAGAN)
DISPOSITIVE:
“WHEREFORE, the Court FINDS and DECLARES respondent Judge Frisco T. Lilagan, Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 34, in Tacloban City GUILTY of gross inefficiency for his undue delay in resolving the pending motion for reconsideration; and, ACCORDINGLY, FINES him in the amount of P45,000.00, with a warning that a similar infraction in the future will be more severely sanctioned.
SO ORDERED.”
SUBJECTS/DOCTRINES/DIGEST:
SUPPOSE A JUDGE HAS VOLUMINOUS CASELOAD, WHAT SHALL HE DO IN ORDER TO JUSTIFY DELAY IN DISPOSITION OF CASES WITHIN THE REGLEMENTARY PERIOD?
HE SHOULD NOTIFY THE SUPREME COURT THE REASONS FOR THE DELAY AND REQUEST A REASONABLE EXTENTION OF TIME.
“The respondent judge sought to justify his delay by citing the voluminous caseload he had as the presiding judge. The justification does not persuade. Although we are not insensitive to the heavy caseloads of the trial judges, we have allowed reasonable extensions of the periods for the trial judges to resolve their cases. If the heavy caseload of any judge should preclude his disposition of cases within the reglementary period, he should notify the Court, through the Court Administrator, of the reasons or causes for the delay, and request in writing a reasonable extension of the time to dispose of the affected cases. No judge should arrogate unto himself the prerogative to extend the period for deciding cases beyond the mandatory 90-day period.”
THE RESPONDENT’S EXCUSE WAS THAT NO LEGAL RESEARCHER WAS ASSIGNED TO HIM AND HIS CLERK OF COURT WAS JUST RECENTLY APPOINTED. IS THIS A VALID EXCUSE?
THE RESPONSIBILITY FOR PROMPT ACTION ON THE CASE BELONGED FOREMOST TO THE JUDGE AND COULD NOT BE SHIFTED TO OTHERS.
“We are also not swayed by his other excuses of not having then a legal researcher assigned to him; and of his branch clerk of court being recently appointed. The court’s business did not stop because of such events; hence, he could not use such excuses to delay his actions on the pending matters before his court. Verily, the responsibility for the prompt and expeditious action on the case, which belonged first and foremost to him as the presiding judge, could not be shifted to others like the legal researcher or the recently appointed branch clerk of court.”
RESPONDENT ALSO USED AS JUSTIFICATIONS THE CHRISTMAS HOLIDAYS AND THE FACT THAT HE WAS ALSO THEN UNDER SUSPENSION BECAUSE OF ANOTHER CASE. ARE THESE EXCUSES VALID?
NO BECAUSE THEY DO NOT PLACE THE TIMELY RESOLUTION OF THE CASE BEYOND HIS CONTROL.
“The respondent judge gave other justifications, like the time when the motion for reconsideration was submitted for resolution on December 10, 2009 being already in “the period of euphoria for the Christmas holidays;”23 and that he was serving his three-month suspension from office relative to another administrative case of undue delay in rendering an order when the case was filed, but resolved the complainants’ motion for reconsideration as soon as he reported back to work. We reject these justifications as unworthy explanations of the failure to resolve the motion for reconsideration in an expeditious and seasonal manner simply because they did not place the timely resolution beyond the control of the respondent judge.”
WHAT IS THE EFFECT OF THE FAILURE TO RENDER A DECISION WITHIN THE 90 DAY PERIOD FROM SUBMISSION OF THE CASE FOR DECISION?
IT IS DETRIMENTAL TO THE HONOR AND INTEGRITY OF THE JUDICIAL OFFICE AND CONSTITUTES A DEROGATION OF THE SPEEDY ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE.
“The respondent cannot be spared from the consequences of his undue delays in the case of the complainants. He did not show that he ever requested the Court for the additional time within which to dispose of the matters therein. It then becomes inescapable for him to face the consequences of his inexplicable inaction. He was guilty of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty. Failure to render a decision within the 90day period from the submission of a case for decision is detrimental to the honor and integrity of. the judicial office, and constitutes a derogation of the speedy administration of justice.”
WHAT IS THE SANCTION AGAINST UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING A DECISION OR ORDER?
“Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order falls within the category of a less serious charge, and is penalized as follows:
SEC. 11. Sanctions. -x x x
- If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge. any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
- Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
- A fine of more than Pl 0,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
xx xx”
TO READ THE DECISION, JUST CLICK/DOWNLOAD THE FILE BELOW.
NOTE: TO RESEARCH ON A TOPIC IN YAHOO OR GOOGLE SEARCH JUST TYPE “jabbulao and the topic”. EXAMPLE: TO RESEARCH ON FORUM SHOPPING JUST TYPE “jabbulao and forum shopping”.
J.A.B. Bulao & Associates 