In Criminal Case No. 318 (Pp. vs. Oscar Mandana, et al.), accused Mandana posted a cash bond in the amount of ten thousand pesos (

Ruling

accordingly faults the judge for gross inefficiency, which is a less serious charge, mitigated by the fact (a) that this is his first offense not to mention . . . (b) that he is also an Acting Presiding Judge of three (3) MCTCs including [that of MCTC Dapa-Socorro], and recommends that he be fined the amount of Five Thousand ( P 5,000.00) Pesos with a warning that a repetition of the same be dealt with more severely. This Court finds that, indeed, respondent judge is guilty of gross inefficiency and even gross negligence, [11] hence, falling under the classification of less serious charge in Sec. 9 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, which is punishable by Sec. 11 B of the same rule, as amended by 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 P 10,000.00 but not exceeding P 20,000.00. That respondent was designated Acting Presiding Judge in other stations in addition to his original station is no excuse for his delay in promptly deciding a case. [12] A judge should at all times remain in full control of the proceedings in his sala and should follow the time limit set for deciding cases [13] or resolving motions. He should not depend on his clerk of court for the calendaring of cases, for court management is ultimately his responsibility. [14] That a judge must be conversant with basic legal principles [15] and procedures is elementary. Among other things, he is expected to keep his own record of cases and to note therein their status so that he may act on them accordingly and promptly. [16] He must thus adopt a system of record management and organize his docket in order to bolster the prompt and effective dispatch of business. [17] Unreasonable delay in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct. [18] Given the judges litany of infractions, the recommended penalty is unreasonably light. As for respondent Clerk of Court, he gave the following explanation as correctly synthesized by the OCA: . . . [T]heir process servers were instructed to personally serve the summons in civil cases. However, there are instances where they are advised by the counsels to demand payment of the sheriffs expenses from the plaintiffs themselves. It is only when the plaintiffs fail to make the necessary payment that summons will be mailed. He assured the Court that the said incident will not be repeated as his office will not accept or receive complaints unless the filing and other fees are completely settled. As to the matter of resetting without appropriate orders, he stressed that there are instances when Judge Literato would just call to inform him that he will not be able to arrive at the scheduled hearings due to bad weather condition. It is reportedly in such situations that the hearings are reset without the appropriate orders. Further, there were also instances that Judge Literato forgot to prepare