A.M. No. RTJ-08-2101 (Formerly OCA-I.P.I. No. 07-2763-RTJ) - EMIL J. BIGGEL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL. PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, BAGUIO CITY.R E S O L U T I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that he be meted a fine in the amount of P20,000.00. In a Resolution [6] dated 28 January 2008, the Court noted the report of the OCA and directed the parties to manifest their willingness to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed. In his Manifestation dated 26 February 2008, complainant manifested that he was submitting the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed. [7] Respondent manifested the same willingness in his Manifestation dated 12 March 2008. [8] The Court finds the OCA's recommendation to be in order. Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature. No less than the Constitution mandates that lower courts must dispose of their cases promptly and decide them within three months from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the Court concerned. In addition, a judge's delay in resolving, within the prescribed period, pending motions and incidents constitutes a violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requiring judges to dispose of court business promptly. [9] There should be no more doubt that undue inaction on judicial concerns is not just undesirable but more so detestable especially now when our all-out effort is directed towards minimizing, if not totally eradicating the perennial problem of congestion and delay long plaguing our courts. The requirement that cases be decided within the reglementary period is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice, for obviously, justice delayed is justice denied. An unwarranted slow down in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. [10] In the instant case, complainant filed an urgent motion for reinvestigation on 5 January 2006. Respondent judge issued an Order dated 9 January 2006 directing Public Prosecutor Tabangin to file a comment within ten (10) days from receipt of the motion. As the public prosecutor failed to file a comment, respondent judge reset the hearing to 1 March 2006 instead of submitting the motion for resolution. On 7 March 2006, respondent judge denied the urgent motion for reinvestigation. Hence, complainant moved for reconsideration on 23 March 2006. Respondent judge then directed the public prosecutor to file a comment on said motion. Despite the public prosecutor's failure to file the required comment and complainant's several motions for resolution, respondent judge granted the reinvestigation only on 26 July 2006--clearly beyond the mandated period. Notably, respondent judge not only delayed the submission for resolution of the motion for reinvestigation but also delayed the submission of the motion for reconsideration for resolution. Respondent judge's failure to act with dispatch constitutes undue delay punishable