AM 18 03 03 Sb; (January, 2019) (Digest)
A.M. No. 18-03-03-SB, January 29, 2019
RE: E-MAIL COMPLAINT OF MA. ROSARIO GONZALES AGAINST HON. MARIA THERESA MENDOZA-ARCEGA, ASSOCIATE JUSTICE, SANDIGANBAYAN AND HON. FLERIDA Z. BANZUELA, PRESIDING JUDGE, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 51, SORSOGON CITY, SORSOGON.
FACTS
Complainant Ma. Rosario Gonzales, a party-litigant in an annulment case (Civil Case No. 664-M-2012), filed an e-mail complaint against several judges, including then-Presiding Judge Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega and Acting Presiding Judge Flerida Zaballa-Banzuela of the RTC of Malolos City, Bulacan. Gonzales alleged incompetence and unprofessionalism, citing undue delays that extended the case to five years. Specific allegations included delays in serving summons, multiple cancelled hearings due to judge or prosecutor absences, and prolonged intervals between witness testimonies during Justice Mendoza-Arcega’s tenure. Against Judge Zaballa-Banzuela, Gonzales complained that the decision was not rendered within the 90-day reglementary period and that the entry of judgment was delayed.
In her comment, Judge Zaballa-Banzuela defended that she rendered the decision within the 90-day period. She explained that after granting an extension for filing memoranda, the complainant’s counsel filed a Motion to Withdraw. She prioritized resolving this motion and then ordered the parties to file memoranda, after which she considered the case submitted for decision. She calculated the 90-day period from the expiration of the new memorandum deadline, concluding the decision was promulgated on July 10, 2017, within the period.
ISSUE
Whether the respondent judges are administratively liable for undue delay in the proceedings and decision-making in Civil Case No. 664-M-2012.
RULING
The complaint against Justice Maria Theresa Mendoza-Arcega is dismissed. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found the allegations against her without merit. The delays during her tenure were attributable to mandated procedures like collusion investigation, the coordination required for serving summons outside jurisdiction, and valid reasons for hearing cancellations such as official business or the parties’ own unavailability. The OCA noted the complainant never moved for earlier settings when possible.
However, Judge Flerida Zaballa-Banzuela is found guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision. The Court disagreed with her calculation of the 90-day period. Under A.M. No. 02-11-10-SC (Rule on Declaration of Absolute Nullity of Void Marriages and Annulment of Voidable Marriages), the case is deemed submitted for decision after the lapse of the period to file memoranda, with or without the memoranda. The filing of a Motion to Withdraw as Counsel by the complainant’s own lawyer did not justify suspending the reglementary period. Judge Zaballa-Banzuela should have decided the main case independently of that ancillary motion. Her failure to do so constituted undue delay, a less serious charge.
Considering it was her first offense in over seven years of service and she acted with honest intentions, the penalty is mitigated. Judge Zaballa-Banzuela is REPRIMANDED with a stern warning that a repetition will be dealt with more severely.