Judge Winston M. Villegas of Tanjay City, Negros Oriental was found GUILTY of undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. 192. Accordingly, he was fined P15,000.00, with a STERN WARNING against the commission of a similar offense. (VERA VS. JUDGE VILLEGAS, AM No. RTJ-09-2211, Aug. 12, 2010).
Records showed that Civil Case No. 192 was filed on March 6, 2003. The complainant alleged that their last hearing was held on July 6, 2006 as evidenced by the Order issued by the respondent judge granting, among other things, her request to secure the services of another lawyer and to file the corresponding opposition to the Motion to Dismiss filed by Lorenzo Vera Cruz. It was only on December 27, 2007, or after more than one (1) year, that the respondent judge issued another Order denying the Motion to Dismiss and setting the case for pre-trial on February 7, 2008. Hence, it was clear that the respondent judge was guilty of undue delay in resolving the Motion to Dismiss filed by Lorenzo Vera Cruz. The said motion was resolved beyond the 90-day period required by law. Further, it was not refuted that the case was filed in 2003, and after almost five (5) years, it remained in the pre-trial stage. Respondent’s contentions that he had to hear 10 to 12 cases a day and that the electricity of the court was cut off in September 2007 were untenable to justify delay in the trial and resolution of pending incidents filed before him.
ACCORDING TO THE SUPREME COURT:
x x x.
Indeed, Judge Villegas had fallen short of the standards of efficiency and promptness of action required of an administrator of justice. He had become deaf, in this particular case, to the age-old maxim “justice delayed is justice denied.” As we stressed in an earlier administrative matter,[21] “Failure to decide a case or resolve a motion within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction against the erring magistrate. The delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law is not excusable.”[22]
Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case is classified as a less serious charge.[23] If the respondent is found guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed: (1) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months; or (2) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.[24]
In determining the penalty to be imposed, we take into account the surrounding circumstances of the case. In this case, we have to consider that this is Judge Villegas’ first offense of this nature. Thus, a fine, rather than the heavier penalty of suspension, is more appropriate. The amount of the fine, on the other hand, has to take into account the extent of the delay. The complainant’s case – Civil Case No. 192 – was still on pre-trial as of February 7, 2008, or almost five years since it was filed on March 6, 2003. This delay cannot but be substantial delay given the time that has passed and the status of the case. Thus, a fine in the midrange of the imposable penalty, or P15,000.00 is in order.
