A.M. No. CA-10-49-J [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No. 08-142-CA-J] - RAMON C. GONZALES, COMPLAINANT, VS. COURT OF APPEALS ASSOCIATE JUSTICE AMELITA G. TOLENTINO.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

accordingly render their collective judgment after due deliberation. Thus, we have held that a charge of violation of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act on the ground that a collective decision is "unjust" cannot prosper. Consequently, the filing of charges against a single member of a division of the appellate court is inappropriate. [14] Respecting the complaint about the delay in resolving complainant's Motion for Inhibition, the Court notes that the motion was filed on September 29, 2005 after complainant filed before this Court on September 8, 2005 a petition for certiorari to assail the issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction. As earlier stated, the Court resolved the petition for certiorari on April 11, 2007 . It was only on October 8, 2008 , however, or only after complainant filed on August 20, 2008 the letter-complaint which this Court referred to the Court of Appeals, and after complainant also filed on Augsut 21, 2008 a reiterative motion for inhibition , that respondent resolved the motion by granting it. Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the Constitution directs: All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from the 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. (underscoring supplied) Respondent's justification for the delay in resolving the motion for inhibition †in deference to the authority of this Court to resolve the issues raised in the petition for certiorari †does not impress. Section 7 of Rule 65 of the Rules of Court provides that a petition for certiorari shall not interrupt the course of the principal case unless a temporary restraining order or a writ of preliminary injunction has been issued against the public respondent from further proceeding with the case. This rule must be strictly adhered to by appellate and lower courts notwithstanding the possibility that the proceedings undertaken by them tend to or would render nugatory the pending petition before this Court. [15] But even gratuitously crediting respondent's justification for the delay, since the Court resolved complainant's petition for certiorari on April 11, 2007 , still, given the nature and history of the cases, respondent unduly delayed the resolution of a mere motion for inhibition †only on October 8, 2008 , after the Court referred the present complaint to the appellate court and after complainant filed a reiterative motion . Under Section 9 (1) of Rule 140 [16] of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge. Under Section 11 (B) of the same rule, the following sanctions may be imposed on judges of regular and special courts and justices of the Court of Appeals and the Sandiganbayan who commit less serious offenses: Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not l