A.M. No. RTJ-11-2261 (Formerly OCA IPI No. 10-3386- RTJ) - ATTY. JOSE VICENTE D. FERNANDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANGELES S. VASQUEZ.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, the OCA recommended that respondent be fined in the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos. Our Ruling We agree with the findings of the OCA on respondent's gross inefficiency and dishonesty although we differ with respect to the penalty imposed. On the other hand, we see no reason for this Court to look into the rest of the allegations of the complainant. The issue concerning the assessment of witness and filing fees had already been passed and ruled upon by the CA in a judicial proceeding. Also, the allegations of bias and partiality of respondent judge in connection with the denial of the motions of inhibition filed by complainant are matters which are judicial in character and may not be addressed in this administrative complaint. Orders of inhibition are not administrative in character; they are judicial in nature. [16] Thus, the propriety of the action of the judge in denying the motions for inhibition should have been raised in a judicial proceeding and not in this administrative action. On Respondent's Gross Inefficiency The Court, in the exercise of its administrative supervision over the lower courts, has the authority to look into the time spent by respondent judge in resolving the incident. As observed by the OCA, respondent judge failed to resolve the motion for his inhibition within the 90-day reglementary period. He acted on the first and second motions for inhibition, which were filed on 27 February 2006 and 28 February 2007, respectively, only on 13 March 2007, or more than a year after the filing of the first motion. In the orderly administration of justice, judges are required to act with dispatch in resolving motions filed in their court. The parties have the right to be properly informed of the outcome of the motions they have filed and the Constitutional right to a speedy disposition of their case. Taking into account the circumstances in this case, we find no reason for respondent judge's delayed action. Delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge's sala within the reglementary period fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable and cannot be condoned. Under Section 15(1) [17] of Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and Canon 3, Rule 3.05 [18] of the Code of Judicial Conduct, judges are mandated to dispose of their cases promptly and decide them within the prescribed periods. [19] The failure of a judge to decide a case seasonably constitutes gross inefficiency. [20] It violates the norms of judicial conduct and is subject to administrative sanction. The imposable penalty for gross inefficiency varies depending on the attending circumstances of a case. In a Resolution [21] dated 8 July 1998, this Court, through then Associate Justice Reynato S. Puno, exhaustively discussed the penalties that were imposed on several cases involving gross inefficiency. Thus: We have always considered the failure of a judge to decide a case within ninety (90) days as gross inefficiency and impos