A.M. No. MTJ-12-1811; June 13, 2012
LETICIA G. JACINTO, Complainant, vs. JUDGE JOSEPHUS JOANNES H. ASIS, METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 40, QUEZON CITY, Respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Leticia G. Jacinto, the plaintiff in an unlawful detainer case (Civil Case No. 05-35013) before the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 40, Quezon City, filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Josephus Joannes H. Asis for undue delay in resolving a pending incident and rendering judgment. The case was submitted for decision by Judge Asis on March 9, 2007. Following a Motion for Reconsideration from the defendants and Jacinto’s Opposition filed in April 2007, the complainant filed an Urgent Motion to Submit Incident for Resolution in August 2007 due to the judge’s inaction. The administrative complaint was filed in September 2010, alleging failure to promptly dispose of the case.
In his defense, Judge Asis cited serious health issues that impeded his work. He detailed a series of medical emergencies starting in 2006, including an eye illness, a seizure and mild stroke in May 2007, subsequent seizures, an eye operation in August 2007, and hospitalization for a brain hemorrhage followed by a brain operation in September 2007. He was on official leave from September to November 2007. Judge Asis ultimately resolved the Motion for Reconsideration on October 19, 2010, and rendered the Decision on October 26, 2010, actions taken only after he was directed by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) to comment on the administrative complaint.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Josephus Joannes H. Asis is administratively liable for undue delay in resolving a motion and rendering a decision in an unlawful detainer case.

RULING

Yes, Judge Asis is administratively liable, but mitigating circumstances warrant a reduced penalty. The Court agreed with the OCA’s finding of guilt. The case, being an unlawful detainer action, was governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which mandates a judge to render judgment within 30 days from receipt of the last affidavits and position papers. While the Court acknowledged that Judge Asis’s severe medical conditions from 2007 constituted a valid reason for his initial inability to comply with this reglementary period, they did not completely absolve him of liability. The critical failing was his inaction after he returned to work. The delay extended for approximately three years, and he only resolved the pending matters after being prompted by the administrative complaint. The Court emphasized that the prudent course of action would have been for Judge Asis to request an extension of time from the Court upon his return to duty, thereby informing the litigants of the status and reason for the delay. His failure to do so constituted undue delay, a less serious charge under the Rules of Court.
However, the Court found the existence of mitigating circumstances: this was Judge Asis’s first administrative infraction, and the delay was directly attributable to his grave and documented health problems. While the rules prescribe a fine of more than ₱10,000 but not exceeding ₱20,000 for a less serious charge, the Court has consistently allowed a reduction in the penalty when mitigating factors are present. Consequently, the Court modified the OCA’s recommended fine of ₱2,000 and imposed a reduced fine of One Thousand Pesos (₱1,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt with more severely.