A.M. No. MTJ-11-1796 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 10-2279-MTJ) - FE D. VALDEZ, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LIZABETH G. TORRES, METC, BRANCH 60, MANDALUYONG CITY.D E C I S I O N - Supreme Court E-Library

Ruling

Accordingly, judges should be imbued with a high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to promptly administer justice. [21] Unfortunately, respondent failed to live up to the exacting standards of duty and responsibility that her position requires. Civil Case No. 20191 was submitted for resolution on July 19, 2006, yet it was still pending when complainant filed the present administrative complaint on June 4, 2010, and remained unresolved per complainants manifestation filed on September 8, 2010. More than four years after being submitted for resolution, Civil Case No. 20191 was still awaiting decision by respondent. Respondent irrefragably failed to decide Civil Case No. 20191 within the 30-day period prescribed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Her inaction in Civil Case No. 20191 is contrary to the rationale behind the Rule on Summary Procedure, which was precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases. [22] Indeed, respondent even failed to decide Civil Case No. 20191 within the three-month period mandated in general by the Constitution for lower courts to decide or resolve cases. Records do not show that respondent made any previous attempt to report and request for extension of time to resolve Civil Case No. 20191. Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies undue delay in rendering a decision as a less serious charge for which the penalty is suspension from office without salary and other benefits for one month to three months, or a fine of P10,000.00 to P20,000.00. The Court is well-aware of the previous administrative cases against respondent for failure to act with dispatch on cases and incidents pending before her. In Del Mundo v. Gutierrez-Torres , [23] respondent was found guilty of gross inefficiency for undue delay in resolving the motion to dismiss Civil Case No. 18756, for which she was fined P20,000.00. In Gonzalez v. Torres, [24] respondent was sanctioned for unreasonable delay in resolving the Demurrer to Evidence in Criminal Case No. 71984 and meted the penalty of a fine in the amount of P20,000.00. In Plata v. Torres, [25] respondent was fined P10,000.00 for undue delay in resolving the Motion to Withdraw Information in Criminal Case No. 6679, and another P10,000.00 for her repeated failure to comply with Court directives to file her comment on the administrative complaint against her. In Winternitz v. Gutierrez-Torres , [26] the Court held respondent guilty of undue delay in acting upon the Motion to Withdraw Informations in Criminal Case Nos. 84382, 84383, and 84384, and suspended her from office without salary and other benefits for one month. In Soluren v. Torres , [27] respondent was once again adjudged guilty of undue delay in acting upon repeated motions to withdraw the information in Criminal Case No. 1008