A.M. No. MTJ-04-1571 (Formerly A.M. No. 03-9-209-MCTC[1] - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE ANICETO L. MADRONIO, SR., FORMER ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, MCTC, SAN FABIAN-SAN JACINTO, PANGASINAN.DECISION - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct directs judges to "dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods." [9] But this rule is not that severe. If a judge finds himself unable to comply with this 90-day requirement for deciding cases or matters, he can, for good reasons, ask for an extension and such request is generally granted. [10] Thus, we have consistently held that notwithstanding the valid reasons that a judge may have for such delay -- poor health, age, heavy caseload, among others -- these do not totally absolve him from liability. At most, they only serve to mitigate the penalty. We held in Hadja Shittie M. Arap vs. Judge Amir Mustafa [11] that: This Court has constantly impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, for it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against them. Under the new amendments to Rule 140, [12] undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge, for which a respondent shall be imposed the penalty of either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months or a fine of more than ten thousand pesos (P10,000) but not more than twenty thousand pesos (P20,000). The fines imposed vary in each case, depending chiefly on the number of cases or matters undecided or unresolved, respectively, within the reglementary period and other factors, to wit: the presence of aggravating or mitigating circumstances the damage suffered by the parties as a result of the delay, the health and age of the judge, etc. Thus, in a number of cases, the fines were set at ten thousand pesos (P10,000), for the judge failed to decide one (1) case within the reglementary period, without offering an explanation for such delay; [13] for one (1) motion left unresolved within the prescriptive period; [14] and for eight (8) cases left unresolved beyond the extended period of time granted to the judge, taking into consideration that the judge was understaffed, burdened with heavy caseload, and hospitalized for more than a month. [15] In another case, the judge was fined ten thousand one hundred pesos (P10,100) for failing to act on one (1) motion. [16] In other cases, the fine was set at eleven thousand pesos (P11,000) for the judge failed to resolve a motion for reconsideration and other pending incidents relative thereto, alleging lack of manpower in his sala as an excuse; [17] decided a case for forcible entry only after one year (1) and more than seven (7) months from the time it was submitted for resolution, considering that respondent judge was grieving due to the untimely demise of his daughter