A.M. No. MTJ-10-1760 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, VS. RETIRED JUDGE FILEMON A. TANDINCO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES (MTCC), CALBAYOG CITY, SAMAR AND RONALDO C. DIONEDA, CLERK OF COURT OF THE MTCC, CALBAYOG CITY, SAMAR.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, we set the fine of P100,000.00 , taking into account the several cases and motions he had failed to dispose of, the unreasonable delay the omission caused to the parties, and Judge Tandico's previous administrative charge for the same offense. With respect to Judge Lampasa, we find that her explanation - the revocation of her designation was way beyond the reglementary period to decide the cases - does not sufficiently justify the delay in the disposition of the court's business. Based on the OCA report, in almost two years of her designation as Assisting Judge of the MTCC, Calbayog City, Samar, Judge Lampasa still failed to resolve the motions and incidents in ninety-five (95) criminal cases and thirty-two (32) civil cases. These motions and incidents were submitted for resolution as early as February 2008 while Judge Lampasa was still discharging her duties as assisting judge. Hence, contrary to Judge Lampasa's contention, the 90-day prescriptive period to resolve these motions had already lapsed way before the revocation of her designation on July 20, 2009, as assisting judge at the MTCC, Calbayog City, Samar. We also found that there were motions in the thirteen (13) civil cases that were already beyond the 90-day prescriptive period. Three (3) of these motions were belatedly resolved by Judge Lampasa: [14] In her undated letter to this Court, Judge Lampasa tried to justify her failure to resolve the motions on the following grounds: the 90-day period within which to decide the cases and motions had not yet lapsed at the time her authority as assisting judge was revoked; she had ceased to discharge her duties as assisting judge; the transcript of stenographic notes and position papers had not been referred to her for appropriate action; and she had referred the resolution of the case to Judge Tandinco. She also invokes her additional court assignments in two other courts and a heavy caseload for the delay and failure to decide cases already submitted for decision. We find her explanation unsatisfactory. A heavy caseload or the assignment of additional functions does not exonerate her. [15] If Judge Lampasa could not decide the cases within the reglementary period, all she needed to do was to ask for extension of time to decide them. This, she also failed to do. In Casia v. Gestopia, Jr., [16] we held that: "That respondent Judge had to attend to other courts will not save him from administrative sanction. In Perez v. Andaya, we held a similar contention unmeritorious, quoting the recommendation of the Investigating Justice with favor thus: Respondent judge's argument that on September 29, 1993Q he was designated acting presiding judge of (the) RTCQ Branch 54(,) in Lucena City, and has been carrying (the) heavy case load of two salas, and lately designated to hear heinous crimes(,) should not be made as basis for excuses at this point in time when the judiciary is under siege upon which the judge should give complete and dedicated