In the case of Ma. Theresa G. Winternitz and Raquel L. Gonzalez vs. Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-09-1733 February 24, 2009, the respondent Judge Torres was suspended from office without salary and other benefits for one (1) month, with the STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same act shall be dealt with more severely. The case involved a long delay on the part of the respondent judge in resolving the motion to withdraw the criminal informations filed by the public prosecutor pursuant to an order of the Department of Justice.
Let me digest the said case for legal research purposes of the visitors of this blog.
The administrative case stemmed from the criminal cases filed against complainants Ma. Theresa G. Winternitz and Raquel L. Gonzalez for grave coercion and grave slander which were raffled to the sala of the respondent Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court of Mandaluyong City, Branch 60.
According to complainants Winternitz and Gonzalez, the Department of Justice (DOJ) issued a resolution dated May 14, 2002 which directed the City Prosecutor of Mandaluyong City to cause the withdrawal of the above-mentioned criminal cases against them. On May 24, 2002, the City Prosecutor filed a Motion to Withdraw Informations pursuant to the directive of the DOJ. However, the respondent judge did not immediately act on said motion but instead set the same for hearing several times. The motion was finally submitted for its resolution on January 13, 2004. As of October 21, 2003, the motion remained unresolved despite the complainants’ prayer for resolution. This prompted herein complainants to file the administrative complaint against respondent judge for malfeasance/ misfeasance. Complainants contended that the delay or inaction of the respondent on the motion constituted a violation of Article 7, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution and Canon 3, Rules 3.08 and 3.09 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
The Supreme Court noted the delay on the part of the judge in submitting her own explanation or comment to the complaint. In his 1st Indorsment dated November 7, 2003, then Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr. ordered respondent to file her comment within ten (10) days from receipt of the same. In her letter dated January 29, 2004, respondent requested a period of twenty (20) days to collate all pertinent data and to submit a detailed comment. Respondent’s request was granted by the Court Administrator in his letter dated February 12, 2004. Still, respondent judge failed to file her comment within the extended period granted to her. In a letter dated August 18, 2004, she again asked for a period of twenty (20) days to submit her comment which was again favorably acted upon by the Court Administrator. Still unable to file her comment, another twenty (20)-day extension was prayed for by respondent which was granted by the Court Administrator on January 26, 2005.
In a Resolution dated September 28, 2005, the Court required respondent judge to explain her repeated failure to comment on the administrative complaints against her and to file the same within a period of ten (10) days. In her letter dated November 7, 2005, respondent judge asked for an additional ten (10) days to submit her comment which the Court granted in the Resolution dated January 16, 2006.
On February 20, 2006, respondent judge finally filed her comment on the three (3) administrative complaints, including the instant complaint (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1611) filed against her. Respondent judge explained that she was unable to immediately act on the City Prosecutor’s motion to withdraw informations despite having set the same for hearing on several occasions particularly on June 10 and 24, 2002, July 24, 2002 and January 13, 2003 because there was no proof of service of the notice of hearing upon private complainant and counsel in the aforesaid criminal cases and she may be accused of partisanship. She also attributed the delay to the heavy caseload when she assumed office in 2001 and to the lack of personnel in her sala. She admitted culpability for her failure to submit her comment on time and asked for consideration from this Court.
In fine, the Court found unmeritorious respondent judge’s excuse that the reason for her delay in resolving the motion to withdraw was the lack of notice of hearing upon the parties. Firstly, she should have realized that almost one (1) year had already elapsed from the time of filing of the motion to withdraw on May 24, 2002 up to its submission for resolution on January 13, 2003. Secondly, she was duty-bound to comply with Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct providing that a judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the prescribed periods. This Canon is in consonance with the Constitutional mandate that all lower courts decide or resolve cases or matters within three (3) months from their date of submission. Accordingly, Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 and Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 provide as follows:
Rule 1.02. A judge should administer justice impartially and without delay.
Rule 3.05. A judge should dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.
In line with the foregoing, the Court has laid down administrative guidelines to ensure that the mandates on the prompt disposition of judicial business are complied with. Thus, SC Administrative Circular No. 13-87 states, in pertinent part:
3. Judges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from date of submission by all lower collegiate courts while all other lower courts are given a period of three months to do so. x x x.
Furthermore, SC Administrative Circular No. 1-88 dated January 26, 1988 states:
6.1. All Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts. x x x
Judge Torres failed to act on the Motion to Withdraw Informations within three (3) months from the time it was submitted for resolution on January 13, 2003. The Court stated that it could not countenance such undue inaction on the part of respondent judge. The requirement that cases be decided within the reglementary period is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice, for obviously, justice delayed is justice denied, the Court stated. Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it to disrepute.
The Court also noted the fact that respondent judge submitted her comment on the instant complaint only after more than two (2) years from the time the OCA required her to do so. Her prolonged and repeated refusal to comply with the simple directives of the OCA to file her comment constituted a clear and willful disrespect for lawful orders of the OCA. A judge must be the first to exhibit respect for authority. Judge Torres failed in this aspect when she repeatedly ignored the directives of the OCA to file her comment.
The Court held that respondent judge was guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision or order. Rule 140, as amended, of the Revised Rules of Court provides that undue delay in rendering a decision or order is classified as a less serious charge punishable 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 P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00, it added.
According to the Court, it was worth mentioning that Judge Torres had been twice found guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision or order in A.M. No. MTJ-05-1611 entitled, “Del Mundo v. Gutierrez-Torres” and in A.M. No. MTJ-06-1653 entitled, “Gonzalez v. Torres.” She was fined P20,000.00 in both cases with the warning that a repetition of the same will be dealt with more severely. Considering that the instant case was her third infraction of the same nature, the Court said Judge Torres deserved a more severe sanction than the fine of P11,000.00 recommended by the Investigating Justice.
