A.M. No. MTJ-11-1790 (Formerly A.M. No. 11-7-86-MTC) - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE RAYMUNDO D. LOPEZ AND EDGAR M. TUTAAN, FORMER PRESIDING JUDGE AND CLERK OF COURT, RESPECTIVELY, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, PALO, LEYTE.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

WHEREFORE , in view of the foregoing, it is respectfully recommended that: 1. Mr. Edgar M. Tutaan, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Palo, Leyte be INCLUDED as respondent in the instant administrative case; 2. Retired Judge Raymundo D. Lopez, former Presiding Judge, MTC, Palo, Leyte be found GUILTY of gross dereliction of duty/gross inefficiency and be FINED in the amount of two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) to be taken from the two hundred thousand pesos (P200,000.00) ordered withheld from his retirement benefits pursuant to the Resolution of 15 August 2011; 3. Mr. Edgar M. Tutaan, Clerk of Court, Municipal Trial Court, Palo, Leyte , be found guilty of misconduct and be FINED in the amount of ten thousand pesos (P10,000.00) with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar infraction shall be dealt with more severely; x x x. (Boldfacing in the original) The Courts Ruling The Court finds the report of the OCA well taken except as to the penalty. On the Delay in Rendering Judgment Judges have the sworn duty to administer justice and decide cases promptly and expeditiously because justice delayed is justice denied. [26] The 1987 Constitution mandates that all cases or matters be decided or resolved by the lower courts within three months from date of submission. [27] Judges are expected to perform all judicial duties, including the rendition of decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. [28] In this case, Judge Lopez failed to decide a total of 32 cases and resolve pending incidents in 16 cases within the 90-day reglementary period. Time and again, this Court reminds judges to decide cases with dispatch. The Court has consistently held that the failure of a judge to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, and non-observance of this rule is a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge. [29] Upon proper application and in meritorious cases, however, the Court has granted judges of lower courts additional time to decide cases beyond the 90-day reglementary period. In this case, Judge Lopez, despite his medical condition and personal circumstances, did not apply for any extension to decide the cases before him. In certain instances, as the OCA noted, the cases were submitted for decision even before Judge Lopez began having medical problems. This Court commiserates with Judge Lopez for the heart attack, other ailments, and personal tragedy that he suffered. However, these do not exonerate him from the consequences of his omissions that took place before he became ill and more than a decade after he had resumed reporting to work. In the absence of any showing that his medical and personal problems prevented him from working after his operation, Judge Lopez had no valid excuse for not giving due attention to the cases in his sala. At the very least, his health problems and personal crises would only mitigate his liability. In Re: Cases