FIRST
DIVISION
ATTY. ROMULO A.
RIVERA,
Complainant,
A.
M.
No. RTJ-97-1391
October
16, 1997
[Formerly
OCA IPI No. 96-247-RTJ]
-versus-
JUDGE
EFREN A.
LAMORENA,
Regional Trial
Court,
Santiago City,
Branch 36,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
HERMOSISIMA,
JR., J.:
A judge should not
pay mere lip service to the 90-day reglementary period for deciding a
case.
Strict implementation of the 90-day rule is enjoined by this Court.
However,
this Court is not unaware of certain circumstances beyond the judge's
control
that could possibly justify the delay in his disposition of the cases
assigned
to him.
In a letter-complaint,[1]
dated September 20, 1996, filed by Atty. Rivera against respondent
judge,
he prays that the latter be ordered to render a decision in a case for
judicial foreclosure of mortgage and/or to impose the appropriate
penalty
for failure to comply with the mandate requiring judges to resolve
cases
submitted before them within the reglementary 90-day period.cralaw:red
Complainant is the counsel
of the plaintiff in Civil Case No. 2178[2]
entitled "NCH Philippines, Inc. vs. Spouses Ernesto Lagua and Elvira
Acosta-Lagua,"
which case was already submitted for decision before respondent judge
in
December 1995.cralaw:red
On March 19, 1996, complainant
filed a Motion for Early Resolution[3]
of the above-mentioned civil case. For failure to obtain any positive
results,
complainant filed a Second Motion for Early Resolution,[4]
dated June 17, 1996. On account of respondent judge's inaction on the
said
motions and his continuous inability to resolve the subject foreclosure
case before his sala in violation of the 90-day period provided by law,
complainant was prompted to address the matter to us through a
letter-complaint.cralaw:red
In our Resolution,[5]
dated January 27, 1997, we required respondent judge to submit his
Comment
on complainant's letter.cralaw:red
On March 26, 1997, respondent
judge, in his Comment,[6]
pleaded for this Court's compassion regarding his failure to resolve
Civil
Case No. 2178 as required by law. By way of explanation, he claimed
that
the delay in disposing the said case was due to the pressure of work
coupled
with poor and unbearable working conditions as his office was actually
a stock room which did not provide ample space for eleven employees and
several steel cabinets filled with old dusty records of the Multi-Sala
Court.cralaw:red
A careful review of
the records of this case discloses that although apparently, there
exists
valid grounds for some delay in deciding the cases submitted before
respondent
judge, the circumstances pointed out by him can only serve to mitigate
but not to exonerate him from any administrative liability.
This Court has
consistently
impressed upon judges to decide cases promptly and expeditiously in the
principle that justice delayed is justice denied.[7]
Decision-making, among others, is the primordial and most important
duty
of a member of the judiciary.[8]
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 and constitutes gross inefficiency.[9]
In the instant case, however, this Court extends its compassionate arm
and finds the reasons for the delay justified.cralaw:red
ACCORDINGLY, for his
failure to decide a case within the 90-day period, We hereby RESOLVE
that
Judge Efren A. Lamorena be ADMONISHED with a WARNING that a repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with more
severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Davide, Jr., Bellosillo,
Vitug and Kapunan, JJ., concur.
______________________________
Endnotes
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 4-7.
[3]
Rollo, pp. 15-16.
[4]
Rollo, p. 17.
[5]
Rollo, p. 20.
[6]
Rollo, pp. 21-22.
[7]
Judge Luis B. Bello, Jr., 247 SCRA 519, 524 [1995].
[8]
Guintu v. Lucero, 261 SCRA 1, 9 [1996].
[9]
Id., p. 7.
|
