AM MTJ 02 1409; (April, 2002) (Digest)
A.M. No. MTJ-02-1409. April 5, 2002. ATTY. JOSELITO A. OLIVEROS, complainant, vs. JUDGE ROMULO G. CARTECIANO (Ret.), Municipal Trial Court, Los Baños, Laguna, respondent.
FACTS
Complainant Atty. Joselito A. Oliveros, counsel for the plaintiff, filed an administrative complaint for gross neglect of duty against respondent Judge Romulo G. Carteciano. The complaint stemmed from the judge’s failure to decide an ejectment case (Civil Case No. 2167) within the 30-day period mandated by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The case was submitted for decision in March 2000, but no decision was rendered until after the complaint was filed.
In his comment, respondent judge admitted the delay but offered an explanation. He claimed that the decision had been prepared but its issuance was delayed due to repeated breakdowns of the second-hand personal computer and printer he used for court work, which he rented at his personal expense. He attached a copy of the decision, finally rendered on July 18, 2001, which was approximately 15 months after the expiration of the mandatory period.
ISSUE
Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for his failure to decide the ejectment case within the reglementary period.
RULING
Yes, respondent judge is administratively liable. The Court found his explanation for the delay unacceptable. The Revised Rule on Summary Procedure explicitly requires judgment to be rendered within thirty days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers. The Court, agreeing with the Court Administrator, deemed the excuse of a malfunctioning computer as “flimsy.” Respondent could have utilized a manual typewriter to prepare the decision or, alternatively, could have requested a proper extension of time from the Court. His inaction constituted a violation of Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates judges to dispose of court business promptly.
The delay of 15 months, absent a valid justification, constitutes gross inefficiency. Applying prevailing jurisprudence, the Court imposed a fine of One Thousand Pesos (P1,000.00). Since respondent had already retired from service, the fine was ordered to be deducted from his retirement benefits. The ruling emphasizes the mandatory and non-negotiable nature of reglementary periods for deciding cases, especially those governed by summary procedure.