ACCORDINGLY, the Judicial Integrity Board respectfully RECOMMENDS to the Honorable Supreme Court that: the administrative complaint against respondent Presiding Judge Miguel S. Asuncion, Branch 99, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, Rizal, be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; respondent be found GUILTY of simple neglect of duty in the performance of official functions and be FINED in the total amount of [PHP 50,000.00], payable within a period not exceeding [three] months from the time the decision or resolution is promulgated; and be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same offense shall be dealt with more severely and the complaint against respondent as a member of the Philippine Bar be DISMISSED for lack of merit. [23] (Emphasis in the original) The Court's Ruling We adopt the recommendation of the JIB, finding the respondent guilty of simple neglect of duty. In administrative cases, the complainant bears the onus of proving the averments of the complaint by substantial evidence. [24] Only substantial evidence is required to warrant disciplinary sanctions in administrative proceedings. [25] It is defined as that amount of relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to justify a conclusion. [26] The standard of substantial evidence is satisfied when there is reasonable ground to believe that a person is responsible for the misconduct complained of, even if such evidence might not be overwhelming or even preponderant. [27] The rationale for the requirement that complaints against judges and justices of the judiciary must be accompanied by supporting evidence is to protect magistrates from the filing of flimsy and virtually unsubstantiated charges against them. [28] Pursuant to A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC, [29] undue delay in rendering a decision is a form of negligence which may be subsumed as either gross neglect of duty, classified as a serious charge, or simple neglect of duty, classified as a less serious charge. Simple neglect of duty means the failure of an employee or official to give proper attention to a task expected of them, signifying a disregard of a duty resulting from carelessness or indifference. [30] As will be shown below, the complainant was able to prove, through substantial evidence, that the respondent is guilty of simple neglect of duty. Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the 1987 Constitution provides: SECTION 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts . (Emphasis supplied) A perusal of the records shows that in Civil Case No. 12-9697, the respondent issued an Order dated June 21, 2018, which allowed the complainant to present his evidence ex parte on August 23, 2018. He completed his presentation of evidence and submitted his