Gamboa-Roces vs Perez

A.M. MTJ-16-1887 | Jan. 9, 2017

J. Mendoza

There was an administrative complaint filed against Judge Perez, charging her with
gross ignorance of the law because he failed to render judgment on consolidated
ejectment cases within the 30-day reglementary period provided by law. Even up to
the filing of the complaint against him, 10 months later, he still had not yet
submitted the decision on the case.

Judge Perez admitted his lapse, saying that it was inadvertent and due to his
inexperience as a new judge. He had already decided the case within the
reglementary period, but wanted it to be perfected. He set it aside, and then forgot
that he had yet to submit it to the clerk of court for dissemination until almost a year
later.

W/N respondent judge was guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision.

Held: Yes. Judge Perez’s explanation was too flimsy. Inexperience and an excuse
that the delay was not intended to prejudice the plaintiffs is not persuasive,
since it is his duty to resolve the cases within the reglementary period as
mandated by the law and rules.

The Supreme Court said that: “A judge is expected to keep his own listing of cases
and to note therein the status of each case so that they may be acted upon
accordingly and without delay. He must adopt a system of record management and
organize his docket in order to monitor the flow of cases for a prompt and effective
dispatch of business.”

Undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious charge punishable by either a)

suspension from service without salary and other benefits for not less than 1 month
nor more than 3 months; or b) a fine of more than P10,000 but not more than
P20,000. In 2 other similar cases, judges were penalized with a fine of P10,000. In
this case, following the mandate of the Rules of Court and jurisprudence, Judge
Perez was given a fine of P10,000.