A.M. No. RTJ-23-039 (Formerly JIB FPI No. 21-075-RTJ) - ROLLY C. CASTILLO, COMPLAINANT, VS. HON. MIGUEL S. ASUNCION, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 99, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, ANTIPOLO CITY, RIZAL.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

ACCORDINGLY, we respectfully RECOMMEND to the Honorable Supreme Court that: The instant administrative matter be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter; Respondent Presiding JUDGE MIGUEL S. ASUNCION, Branch 99, Regional Trial Court, Antipolo City, Rizal, be found GUILTY of gross neglect of duty and FINED in the amount of Four Hundred Thousand Pesos ([PHP] 400,000.00), payable within three (3) months from receipt of the decision or resolution; and Respondent Judge Asuncion be STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely by the Supreme Court. [36] According to the JIB, the plaintiffs' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction was submitted for resolution on April 1, 2016, but it was only resolved on April 11, 2023. The JIB agreed with the OED's observation that the matter was submitted for resolution long before the COVID-19 pandemic took place. Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and OCA Circular No. 243-2022 require the timely resolution of pending incidents. Hence, the JIB found Judge Asuncion guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. The JIB took note of the other administrative cases involving Judge Asuncion in recommending a penalty of a fine of PHP 400,000.00. [37] The Issue The issue before the Court is whether Judge Asuncion is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty in the Performance or Non-Performance of Official Functions under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 21-08-09-SC. The Ruling of the Court The Court agrees with the findings of the JIB but modifies the penalty imposed. Preliminarily, the Court clarifies that the subject of the Complaint is the alleged delay of Judge Asuncion in resolving the plaintiffs' prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction. Castillo does not assail the denial of their prayer in his Complaint before the Court. Accordingly, the principle that judicial remedies must first be exhausted before resorting to an administrative complaint, [38] does not apply here. The timely resolution of pending matters before the court is required by no less than Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution: 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. (2) A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself. (3) Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to this effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall forthwith be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or matter, and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a decision or resoluti