G.R. No. A.M. No. MTJ-98-1158 July 30, 1998
Atty. Nelson Y. Ng, complainant, vs. Judge Leticia Q. Ulibari, Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 67, Makati City, respondent.

FACTS

Complainant Atty. Nelson Y. Ng charged respondent Judge Leticia Q. Ulibari with “sheer ignorance of the law,” gross incompetence, and neglect of duty. The allegations included that respondent is a lazy judge who calls cases late at 9:30 a.m. in her chambers instead of in open court and neglects her duties. Specific instances cited were: (1) In Civil Case No. 45497, failure to resolve for over four months a motion to recall a witness; (2) In Civil Case No. 49740, failure to resolve for almost a year a motion to declare defendants in default; (3) In Civil Case No. 49499, denial of a motion to amend the complaint to implead another surety, which complainant claimed showed ignorance of the law and caused multiplicity of suits; and (4) In Civil Cases Nos. 51902, 51916, 51930, and 51923, granting a motion to declare a defendant in default but taking no action on a motion for consolidation, indicating poor managerial skills. Respondent judge denied the charges, providing explanations for each case, such as the lack of a court stenographer since 1996 and certain motions not being brought to her attention. Complainant later moved to withdraw his complaint, but evaluation proceeded. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the case be docketed as an administrative matter and that respondent judge be admonished and warned.

ISSUE

Whether respondent Judge Leticia Q. Ulibari is administratively liable for gross inefficiency and neglect of duty based on the allegations of delay in resolving motions and poor court management.

RULING

Yes, respondent judge is guilty of gross inefficiency. The Court found her explanations unsatisfactory. She did not deny the delay in resolving the motion to recall a witness in Civil Case No. 45497 and the motion to consolidate in the Macondray cases. Her claim of having resolved the motion to declare in default in Civil Case No. 49740 promptly was contradicted by the record, which showed complainant later filed a motion to resolve that very motion. Her failure to act on motions, attributed to them not being brought to her attention, reflected poor docket management in violation of Canon 3, Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. The absence of a permanent stenographer did not completely excuse the delays, as the 90-day period for resolving incidents must be observed. The allegation of holding sessions late at 9:30 a.m., not denied by respondent, also indicated a failure to comply with rules requiring sessions to start at 8:30 a.m. and trials to be held in open court. The Court modified the recommended penalty, imposing a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) with a WARNING that repetition will be dealt with more severely.