SECTION 15

PERIOD FOR MAKING DECISION

Dizon v. Lopez 278 SCRA 483 [1997]
FACTS: This is a complaint filed to Judge Lilia C. Lopez regarding the reading of dispositive portion of the decision
sentencing Dizon (Complainant) to imprisonment, without serving a copy of the decision to him, that on April 23
Judgment was rendered to Dizon on the grounds of falsification of documents, the accused and his counsel were told to
return in a few days for the copy of their decision, they were not able to do so, and on December 16, 1994; one year and
eight months only then he was given the copy.
The Complainant alleged that the respondent judge violated Section 15(1) of Art VIII of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Section 15(1) of Art VIII of the Constitution.
RULING: Yes, The court finds the respondent violated Art. VIII, Section 15(1) of the Constitution, Which states that All
cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from
date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower
collegiate courts and three months for all other lower courts.
The respondent claims that on April 22, 1993 the text of her decision, containing her findings and discussions of the
complainants liability, had already been prepared, However, the fact is that it took a year and eight months more before
this was done and a copy of the complete decision furnished the complainant on December 16, 1994, constitutes a
violation of Section 15(1) of Art VIII of the Constitution.
Mosquera v Legaspi, AM RTJ-99-1511, July 10, 2000
FACTS: Wilfredo Mosquera filed a complaint charging respondent Judge Emilio Legaspi, then Acting Presiding Judge,
with dereliction of duty for his failure to resolve/decide Civil Case No. 2530 within the period required by law. Mosquera
was then a plaintiff in the aforesaid case, "Wilfredo Mosquera vs. Estrella Jordan Pagunan, et al.," for consolidation of
ownership, recovery of possession and damages with preliminary attachment; that during the lifetime of defendants
parents, they sold under a pacto de retro sale their conjugal rice land; that vendors-a-retrofailed to exercise their right of
redemption over the said lot; that complainant demanded that the possession of the land be delivered to him or the
purchase price be returned after the lapse of the redemption period; and that since both demands were refused, he filed an
action before the RTC-San Jose Antique, Branch 10, where respondent was then the Acting Presiding Judge; that the
parties filed their respective memoranda and the case was deemed submitted for decision as early as June 1994 and in
which the respondent failed and refused to render a decision, and then he was charged with dereliction of duty.
In his comment, respondent Judge claimed that he had already rendered a decision on the aforesaid case on December 2,
1997; that the delay was due to the request of the parties that the case be held in abeyance for the reason that being town
mates and relatives, they were negotiating for an amicable settlement; that the motion for early decision was filed after the
parties failed to settle their case amicably; that as Acting Executive Judge, he was saddled with so many cases involving
detention prisoners which have been substantially tried by the former presiding judge, to which cases he gave his
preferential attention; and that he was a pairing Judge of Branches 11, 12 and 13.
He was then charged for violating Sec 15(1) of Art VIII of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Section 15(1) of Art VIII of the Constitution.
RULING: Yes, the court ruled out that the respondent violated Section 15(1) of Art VIII of the Constitution. Sec. 15,
Article VIII of the Constitution provides that all cases filed before the lower courts must be decided or resolved within
three (3) months from the date of submission. In the case at bar, it took respondent Judge more than three years to render a
decision on the case. The case was submitted for decision in June 1994 and decided on December 2, 1997.
OCA v. Salva, AM RTJ-98-1412, July 19, 2000
FACTS: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a judicial audit of the cases submitted for decision or
resolution in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) in Puerto Princesa City, The audit team discovered that there
were seventy-five (75) cases submitted for decision or resolution which Judge Dilig inherited from her predecessors.
Sixty-four (64) of the 75 cases were left undecided or unresolved by Judges Sta. Maria and Salva, Based on the foregoing,
the Court Administrator recommended, among others, that Judges Salva and Gomez be fined for their failure to decide or
resolve the cases submitted to them for decision and their failure to comply the decisions or resolutions within the 90-day
(3 month/s) reglamentary period pursuant to Section 15. Art. VIII of the Constitution.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondents violated Section 15. Of Art. VIII of the Constitution.
RULING: Yes, the Court ruled that it has consistently impressed upon members of the judiciary that failure to decide a
case within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions
on the defaulting judge. No less than the Constitution mandates that lower courts decide or resolve cases or matters
submitted for decision within three months upon the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum required by the
Rules of Court or by the court concerned (Section 15(2) )
Dela Cruz v Bersamira, AM RTJ- 00-1567, July 24,2000

FACTS: Respondent Judge Bersamira was charged with violation of R.A No. 3019, otherwise known as the AntiGraft and Corrupt Practices Act, the Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and the Code of
Judicial Conduct. The case stemmed from three criminal cases assigned to respondent;
a.] Criminal Case No. 11309 against Roberto Agana y Borja, for violation of Section 16, Article III, R.A. 6425, as
amended;
b.] Criminal Case No. 4275-D against Roberto Agana y Borja for violation of P.D. No. 1866; and
c.] Criminal Case No. 4276-D against Sarah Resula y Puga for violation of Section 16, Article III of R.A. No. 6425,
as amended.
The respondent was charged inter alia in whose sala the enumerated cases are pending, gravely abused his discretion
and exhibited evident partiality by (1) socializing in posh restaurants with the mother of the accused Roberto Agana
together with their counsel, (2) issuing unreasonable orders for postponement which unjustly delay the administration
of justice, and (3) allowing accused/s Roberto Agana and Sarah Resula to submit to a drug test thereby postponing
the trial of the cases indefinitely.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent judge constituted unreasonable delay and committed an grave abuse of discretion in
delaying the decision within prescribed period/s
RULING: Yes, The Court in a litany of cases has reminded members of the bench that the unreasonable delay of a judge
in resolving a pending incident is a violation of the norms of judicial conduct and constitutes a ground for administrative
sanction against the defaulting magistrate, In the case at bench, the fact that the respondent tarried too long in acting on
the pending incidents in the said cases above, if at all it strongly indicates of his lack of diligence in the performance of
his official duties and responsibilities, and thus constitute a violation of the code of judicial conduct, and of sections 15 of
Art VIII of the Constitution.
Heirs of Sucaldito v. Cruz AM RTJ-991456, July 27, 2000
FACTS: Respondent Judge Magno C. Cruz(retired) was accused with malicious delay in the administration of justice for
his failure to rule on a motion for inhibition within ninety (90) days from its submission in Special Proc. Case No. 113-97RTC-20, entitled In the Matter of Intestate Estate of former Senator Alejandro D. Almendras, Sr. The same complainants
also accused the respondent in his capacity as Presiding Judge of Branch 19 of the Regional Trial Court in Digos, Davao
del Sur, of the same delay in Civil Cases Nos. 3443, 457 (96), 485 (96), 952, 240-91, and in the case of Insoy, et al. versus
SODACO, et al. Complainants further complained that the respondent judge falsely stated in his Certificates of Service
that there was no case or incident pending decision or resolution in his sala for more than ninety (90) days.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Section 15(1) of Art. VIII of the Constitution.
RULING: Yes, The court ruled out that after a careful study, and with due regard to the facts of the case and pleadings
submitted by the parties, the Court is of the opinion, and so finds, that the respondent judge is guilty of delay in resolving
motions pending before his court. And thus it violates Section 15(1) of Art VIII of the Constitution which states that All
cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty four months from
date of submission for the Supreme Court, and unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower
collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
In SP No. 113-97-RTC-20, the motion for inhibition was submitted for resolution on July 3, 1997 but was resolved only
on January 2, 1998. In Civil Cases Nos. 457(96) RTC-21 (3302-OCC) and 485-96 (RTC-20) (3367-000), the motion for
inhibition was submitted for resolution on March 11, 1997 and was granted on February 9, 1998. As regards Civil Cases
Nos. 952 and 240-91, complainants pointed out that a motion for inhibition has been pending before the respondent judge
for at least 113 days. The latter neither refuted nor commented on the allegation of delay levelled against him by the
complainants and therefore, has impliedly admitted the same. In all the subject cases, the motions therein filed were either
resolved after ninety (90) days or not resolved at all.
Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within the period fixed by law is a serious violation of the constitutional
right of the parties to speedy disposition of their case. The Certificate of Service is not merely a means to ones pay check
but an instrument by which courts can safeguard the constitutional right of the people to a speedy disposition of their
cases.
Sulla v. Ramos AM- MTJ- 00-1319, September 27, 2000
FACTS: Dr. Rolando A. Sulla charged respondent Judge Rodolfo C. Ramos with unreasonable delay or refusal to render a
decision in criminal Case No. 8121.
Dr. Sulla states that for and in behalf of her minor daughter, Marissa T. Sulla, he filed said criminal case for acts of
lasciviousness against Esmeraldo Talacay. The case was submitted for decision in April 1997 yet. But as of May 21, 1999,
date of complainant's letter, and despite constant requests for its early resolution, respondent Judge Ramos has not
rendered any decision in the said case. Dr. Sulla expressed fear that the delay in the disposition of the case may be due to

pressure from the other party, and that with the forthcoming retirement of respondent Judge Ramos, the case will only be
decided by his successor.
In his Comment dated August 4, 1999, Judge Ramos contends that Criminal Case No. 8121 was submitted for decision on
July 9, 1997 and not April 1997 as alleged by Dr. Sulla. He explains that due to heavy pressure of work, his indefinite
designation as acting presiding judge of the 1st Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Miguel-Tunga, Leyte and his poor
health, he was not able to decide the said criminal case within the ninety (90)-day reglementary period. Judge Ramos also
denied the allegations of Dr. Sulla that he was the subject of pressure from the opposing party and that he was about to
retire from the Judiciary. In his subsequent Comment dated August 18, 1999, Judge Ramos manifested that "he is now
preparing the decision of said criminal case, aimed that the decision thereof can be rendered as early or immediately as
possible under said circumstances.
Dr. Sulla wrote the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) requesting assistance for the early resolution of Criminal
Case No. 8121. Dr. Sulla pointed out that despite the manifestation in his Comment dated August 18, 1999, Judge Ramos
has not rendered a decision in the said case. In another letter dated January 21, 2000, Dr. Sulla informed the OCA of the
continued inaction of Judge Ramos in Criminal Case No. 8121 notwithstanding the latter's earlier request to the OCA that
he be granted an extension of thirty (30) days from December 15, 1999 to decide the same.
ISSUE: Whether or not respondent violated Section 15 of Art VIII of the Constitution.
RULING: Yes, The Court has consistently impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously
pursuant to Section 15(1) and (2), Article VIII of the Constitution. This requirement is designed to prevent delay in the
administration of justice because justice delayed is justice denied; and delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith
and confidence of our people, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.
This Court notes from the letters of Dr. Sulla, a father's frustration with the justice system, having had to wait more than
(2) years for the resolution of the case which he hopes would bring injustice to his minor daughter. Guarding against this
danger is precisely the reason why this Court has repeatedly reminded judges that failure to decide cases within the
required period constitutes gross inefficiency for which the erring judge is subject to administrative sanctions.
Seares v. Salazar, AM MTJ-98-1160, November 22, 2000
FACTS: Dr. Maria Cristina B. Seares in a sworn letter complaint charged Judge Rosita B. Salazar of MTC, Bangued, and
Abra with ignorance of the law for failure to decide criminal cases for violation of B.P. No. 22.
Dr. Seares is the private complainant in Criminal Cases Nos. 5760 to 5763, for Violation of B.P. 22. Complainant alleges
that these cases were submitted for decision on February 14, 1996. Since then no decision has yet been
rendered. Furthermore, respondent disregarded the directive of Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez in
a note dated August 8, 1996 that the criminal cases be decided soonest considering the lapse of the 90-day period within
which to resolve the same.
In her comment respondent vigorously denies the charges. She avers that Criminal Cases Nos. 5760 to 5763 was
originally assigned to Judge Redentor Valera but upon the latter inhibitions she was designated to try the aforecited cases
by then Executive Judge Francisco Villarta.
Respondent further avers that the cases involve checks issued by the accused in favour of the complainant in the total sum
of P162,000.00, which all bounced; that however, on February 19, 1996, complainant accepted payment from the accused
in the sum of P150,000.00; that respondent however was surprised when she learned that complainant went to the
Supreme Court personally to complain of respondents failure to decide the cases within the 90-day period; that respondent
went directly to see Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez to explain her side and was instructed to set
the cases for hearing; that at the hearing on September 17, 1996, both parties appeared but without their respective
counsels and agreed to have a conference inside the Judges chambers; that complainant admitted that she accepted the
sum of P150,000.00 from the accused and that to settle the cases amicably complainant demanded that aside from the
payment of the remaining balance of P12,000.00, she be paid an additional P50,000.00 by the accused; that complainant
was offered payment of only P12,000.00 but she refused to accept the same.
Respondent claims that after the September 17, 1996 meeting, complainant went to her house and attempted to influence
her to render a decision convicting the accused to which respondent retorted that the cases are still pending trial and it is
improper to discuss the cases, Hence the filing of this complaint.
ISSUE: Whether or not the respondent has violated the rule that cases must be decided or resolved within three (3)
months from the date of submission pursuant to Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution
RULING: Under Rule 3.01 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, a judge must be faithful to the law and maintain
professional competence, and Rule 3.05 admonishes all judges to dispose of the courts business promptly and to decide
the case within the period fixed by law. The 90-day period to decide or resolve the case submitted for decision, fixed no
less by the Constitution (Section 15, Article VIII) is a mandatory requirement. Hence, non-compliance thereof shall
subject the erring judge to administrative sanction as this Court may deem appropriate. It is only in certain meritorious

cases, i.e., those involving difficult questions of law or complex issue or when the judge is burdened by heavy
caseloads, that a longer period to decide may be allowed but only upon proper application made with the Supreme Court
by the concerned judge.
Gil vs Janolo; AM. NO. RTJ-00-1602; December 5, 2000
FACTS: This is a complaint filed against Judge Leoncio M. Janolo, Jr., presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court,
Branch 264, Pasig City , for failure to decide Civil Case No. 65268, within three months, as required by Art. VIII, 15(1)
(2) of the Constitution in connection with Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Respondent judge issued
an order admitting defendants Formal Offer of Evidence filed on December 4, 1997 and directing both parties to submit
their respective memoranda in the form of a draft decision within 30 days, after which the case would be considered
submitted for decision. Both parties failed to submit their respective memoranda. It took Judge Janolo more than four (4)
months to act on defendants Formal Offer of Evidence. It is also evident from these orders that more than three months
have elapsed, and that the above-mentioned case has remained undecided up to now. In his Comment dated My 12, 1999,
respondent judge acknowledge the delay, which he claims is the result of technical problems with the office computers.
He points out that a decision has already been rendered and the technical problem solved, after some time and personal
expense to him. He assures the Court that a system has already been adopted to minimize, if not eliminate, the effects of
any computer problems in the future. Respondents excuse is unsatisfactory.
ISSUE: WON the Judge excuse was grounds for court administrative sanction.
RULING: No. Under Art. VIII, 15(1) of the Constitution, lower courts have three months within which to decide cases or
resolve matters submitted to them for resolution. We agree with the findings of the Office of the Court Administrator that
respondent Judges delay, while not deliberate, is in part mitigated by problems with his computers, although this fact does
not exonerate him from administrative liability. We are well aware that some cases involve complex questions of facts
and/or law and that the three months allotted to judges for deciding cases may well be inadequate considering the increase
in litigation. Without considering whether respondent in effect passed to the parties the duty of preparing the decision for
him by requiring them to submit their memoranda in the form of a decision, we therefore find Judge Janolos failure to
resolve Civil Case No. 65268 within the reglementary period to be inexcusable as to warrant the imposition of an
administrative sanction on him. We believe that a fine of P2, 000.00, as recommended by the Office of the Court
Administrator, is appropriate.WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Leoncio M. Janolo, Jr. GUILTY of gross inefficiency
for. SO ORDERED.
Aslarona vs Echavez; A.M. No. RTJ-03-1803; October 2, 2003
FACTS: This is an administrative case for Gross Inefficiency and Gross Ignorance of the Law filed against respondent
Judge Antonio T. Echavez, for delay of more than twenty (20) months in resolving three (3) motions filed in Civil Case
No. CEB-23577, Anastacia Alforque Vda. de Alcoseba v. Victor Aslarona, et al., as well as for erroneous denial of the
motions in an Order dated 24 September 2001. Respondent Judge admitted his delay in resolving the aforementioned
motions in Civil Case No. CEB-23577. However he denied that the same was due to any deliberate intent or refusal to
perform a duty on his part. On the contrary, he claimed that the delay was due simply to his heavy workload which in fact
had already caused him to suffer from a heart ailment. Respondent thus pleaded for understanding considering his lengthy
and untainted public service and the fact that this was his first offense.After evaluation of this case, the Office of the Court
Administrator recommended in its Report dated 11 July 2003 that (a) this case be re-docketed as a regular administrative
matter; (b) respondent Judge be fined P5,000.00 for delay in resolving the motions in Civil Case No. CEB-23577 with
warning that repetition of the same offense shall merit a stiffer penalty; and, (c) the charge of gross ignorance of the law
however be dismissed for being premature as there was still a pending motion for reconsideration of the Decision of the
Court of Appeals dated 24 February 2003 in CA-G.R. SP No. 70454.
ISSUE: WON the judge may be excused on the grounds of Art 8 Sec. 15 due to heavy workload.
RULING: Indeed, we have repeatedly warned judges to dispose of court business promptly, resolve pending incidents
and motions, and decide cases within the prescribed periods for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and
confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. Such exhortation is in fact
enshrined in Sec. 15, par. (1), Art. VIII, of our Constitution, as well as in Rule 3.05, Canon 3, of the Code of Judicial
Conduct, which mandates that a magistrate should dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the
required periods. Respondent cites his heavy workload as reason for the delay. However, such cannot excuse him from
administrative liability considering that he could have filed a motion for extension of time as soon as it became clear to
him that he could not possibly resolve the motions on time. WHEREFORE, for undue delay in resolving, is FINED
P5,000.00 with warning that repetition thereof or similar offenses will be dealt with more severely. The charge of gross
ignorance of the law is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
UNITRUST DEVELOPMENT BANK vs. CAOIBES; A.M. No. RTJ-03-1745; August 20, 2003
FACTS: Unitrust Development Bank (UDB) filed the instant complaint against respondents Judge Jose F. Caoibes Jr.,
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pias City. UDB alleged that the respondents are guilty of delay in the
resolution of its motion to dismiss filed in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050 entitled Olivia Garrido vs. Unitrust Development
Bank and its ex-parte petition for the issuance of a writ of possession pending before the same court and docketed as LRC

Case No. LP-98-0350. In his comment, respondent judge alleged that the instant complaint came as a surprise to him
because he thought that everything was in order since the subject motion to dismiss had already been resolved on January
18, 2000, or two (2) months prior to the filing of the instant complaint on March 24, 2000. Respondent judge admitted that
there was a delay in resolving the subject motion although he blamed, and sought to transfer the fault, to Officer-InCharge and Legal Researcher Laureana C. Buenaventura for her failure to adopt a system of proper records management
and for misplacing the records of Civil Case No. LP-98-0050. Respondent judge explained that because Buenaventura
abandoned her office on May 3, 1999, the records were found only after the newly designated Officer-In-Charge, the
respondent Editha B. Caunan, conducted a physical inventory of cases. In two (2) separate resolutions dated September
16, 2002,[14] this Court adopted the recommendation of Court Administrator Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., to dismiss the
administrative complaint against respondent court stenographer Ma. Editha Caunan for lack of merit. The administrative
matter against the respondent judge was referred to the OCA for re-evaluation, report and recommendation. In its report,
the OCA, after finding that the respondent judge was remiss in his duty to resolve the motion to dismiss in Civil Case No.
LP-98-0050 within the 90-day reglementary period, recommended that the respondent judge be fined P2,000 for his
infraction.[15]
ISSUE: WON a judge should be liable if he failed to supervise court personnel which cause the delay of the case
RULING: Yes. Evidence clearly supports UDBs allegation that there was undue delay in the resolution of its motion to
dismiss in Civil Case No. LP-98-0050. Under Section 15(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution, respondent judge had 90
days or until November 30, 1998, to resolve said motion. However, respondent judge resolved the motion only on January
18, 2000 and promulgated the order granting the motion only on March 23, 2000, when copies of said order were mailed
to the parties. As a judge, he has the bounden duty to maintain proper monitoring of cases submitted for his decision or
resolution. A judge ought to know the cases submitted to him for decision or resolution and is expected to keep his own
record of cases so that he may act on them promptly. It is his duty to take note of the cases submitted for his decision or
resolution and see to it that they are decided within the prescribed period. It cannot but raise speculations about
respondent judges impartiality. This Court cannot countenance any act or omission of those involved in the administration
of justice that would diminish or even just tend to diminish the faith of the people in the judiciary. WHEREFORE,
respondent JUDGE JOSE F. CAOIBES JR., declared GUILTY of delay in resolving the complainants. The penalty of
FINE in the amount of Forty Thousand (P40,000.00) Pesos is hereby imposed upon him with a WARNING that a
repetition of a similar act in the future will be dealt with even more severely.
RE: REQUEST OF JUDGE JAVELLANA; A.M. No. 01-6-314-RTC; June 19, 2003
On April 25, 2001, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) received a letterfrom Judge Roberto S. Javellana,
Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court of San Carlos City, Negros Occidental, Branch 59, requesting for an extension
of time within which to decide Civil Case No. X-98 (Teodoro Bintad, et al. v. Celso Ocdinaria, et al.) and Civil Case No.
RTC-363 (Ricardo M. Lacson, et al. v. San Carlos Agro-aqua Corporation, et al.). Judge Javellana explained that he was
not able to render a decision in these cases within the 90-day reglementary period because he presides over two courts,
Branches 57 and 59, and he has to travel to Manila to attend to the administrative case filed against him. On August 8,
2001,[3] the request of Judge Javellana for a 90-day extension within which to decide the two civil cases was granted. He
was directed to submit to the OCA copies of his decisions in the aforesaid cases within ten (10) days from date of its
promulgation. Judge Javellana was furthermore required to explain, within ten (10) days from notice, why his request for
an extension of time was made after the expiration of the 90-day period to decide the cases. On October 3, 2001, Judge
Javellana rendered a decision in Civil Case No. RTC-363. However, it was only on March 20, 2002 that he submitted a
copy of the said decision to the OCA. On May 13, 2002, the OCA submitted its Memorandum, stating that Judge
Javellana failed to render a decision in the two civil cases within the 90-day extended period granted by the Court. Hence,
the OCA recommended that the Court (1) impose on Judge Javellana a fine of Four Thousand Pesos (P4,000.00) for his
failure to decide Civil Cases within the 90-day reglementary period and for his failure to seasonably request for additional
time to resolve them.
ISSUE: WON a judge deciding in another sala may excuse him for a reason of delay on judgement.
Decision-making, among others, is the primordial and most important duty of every member of the bench. Judges have the
sworn duty to administer justice without undue delay, for justice delayed is justice denied. No less than our Constitution
[requires that a trial court judge shall resolve or decide cases within three (3) months after they have been submitted for
decision. In addition to this Constitutional mandate, the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that judges shall dispose of
the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required period. A judge should not pay mere lip service to the
90-day reglementary period for deciding a case. Moreover, the Court, in its aim to dispense speedy justice, is not
unmindful of circumstances that justify the delay in the disposition of the cases assigned to judges. It is precisely for this
reason why the Court has been sympathetic to requests for extensions of time within which to decide cases and resolve
matters and incidents related thereto. When a judge sees such circumstances before the reglementary period ends, all that
is needed is to simply ask the Court, with the appropriate justification, for an extension of time within which to decide the
case. Thus, a request for extension within which to render a decision filed beyond the 90-day reglementary period is
obviously a subterfuge to both the constitutional edict and the Code of Judicial Conduct. In the case at bar, despite being
granted the 90-day extension within which to decide the two civil cases, Judge Javellana failed to meet the deadline within
the extended period. His designation as acting judge in another sala cannot excuse his negligence and gross inefficiency in

failing to decide the two civil cases within the 90-day extended period. As pointed out by the OCA, the delay of Judge
Javellana in resolving the two cases was not caused by heavy caseload in the two branches that he presides. Moreover,
Judge Javellana should have been more circumspect in monitoring the cases submitted for decision, considering that this
is not the first time that he has been sanctioned by this Court for his failure to decide a case within the reglementary period
prescribed by law. WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Judge Roberto S. Javellana of the Regional Trial Court of San
Carlos City (Negros Occidental), Branch 57 is found GUILTY of gross inefficiency, negligence and delay in the rendition
of judgments and gross misconduct prejudicial to the best interest of the service. Accordingly, he is ordered to pay a FINE
in the amount of P20,000.00. He is STERNLY WARNED that commission of similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely.
SALUD vs. ALUMBRES; A.M. No. RTJ-00-1594. June 20, 2003
FACTS: This is an administrative case filed by Pastor Salud against the Hon. Florentino M. Alumbres. On October 19,
1998, Pastor Salud filed a Letter Complaint with the OCA praying that the respondent judge be found administratively
liable for delay in rendering judgment in Civil Case No. LP-96-300. The Salud spouses claimed that the RTC had the
period from May 1997 to August 1997 to decide Civil Case No. LP-96-300, but had not resolved the matter. The
complainants herein asked the OCA to look closely at the docket of respondent judges sala, as they were of the belief that
several cases ripe for decision remained unacted upon. On October 19, 1998, despite Saluds opposition, the respondent
judge issued an Alias Writ of Execution. The respondent judge made the statement, according to Salud despite the prayer
of the Saluds that a decision be rendered on their unlawful detainer case. Respondent judge does not deny that there was a
delay in the rendition of judgment. However, he sought to put the blame for the delay squarely on the complainant herein.
According to respondent, after he decreed the issuance of a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal, complainant herein filed
numerous pleadings not only before the RTC but also with the Court of Appeals, which sought to thwart the
implementation of the writ issued and, obviously, to harass him. Complainant likewise sought to inhibit him from
proceeding with the hearing of Civil Case No. LP-96-300. Respondent avers that complainant even went to the extent of
charging him with contempt of court before the Court of Appeals. As a result, respondent said his time was virtually used
up by answering baseless and unwarranted pleadings filed by the complainant.
ISSUE: WON contributing factors for the delay such as filing numerous pleadings may be an excuse for the judge to be
liable of art 8 sec 15.
RULING: No, Delay in the rendition of judgments diminishes the peoples faith in our judicial system, and lowers its
standards and brings it into disrepute. In the event that judges cannot comply with the deadlines prescribed by law, they
should apply for extensions of time to avoid administrative sanctions. The Court allows a certain degree of latitude to
judges and grants them reasonable extensions of time to resolve cases upon proper application by the judges concerned
and on meritorious grounds. At the very least, respondent judge should have requested for an extension of time to render
judgment once he knew that he could not comply with the prescribed 90-day period to render a judgment. In so doing, he
would have been able to apprise litigants as to the status of the case and the reason for the delay, if any. In this instance,
however, we also have to recognize certain contributing factors for the delay. Although they do not excuse undue delay,
they certainly should mitigate the imposable penalty on the erring judge. Except for the mitigating circumstance, we are in
agreement with the OCA recommendations in this case. The record shows that this is not the first time that respondent has
been called to account by this Court. In 1992, he was fined for gross partiality to a party. In 1996, he was admonished for
delay in the disposition of a case. In 1999, he was reprimanded. Although respondent has retired on June 3, 2001, the
recommendation of the OCA that a fine be imposed on him is still in order. ACCORDINGLY, considering all the
circumstances in this case, Hon. Florentino M. Alumbres, former presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Las Pias,
Branch 255, is FINED FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) for undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No.
LP-96-300. Said amount is hereby ORDERED deducted from retirement benefits of respondent.
SAMSON vs. Judge MEJIA; A.M. No. RTJ-02-1710. June 17, 2003
FACTS: The instant administrative case stemmed from the affidavit-complaint for gros. Complainant alleged that she is
the defendant in Civil Case for annulment of contracts, pending before respondents court. On April 26, 2000, the case was
deemed submitted for decision. Four months passed and still, respondent had not rendered his decision, prompting her to
file three motions for resolution dated August 18, 2000, November 3, 2000 and January 9, 2001. Three months later,
complainant, dismayed by respondents inaction, went to his office and pleaded for the early disposition of the case.
However, respondent ignored her plea and even suggested that she settle the case amicably with the plaintiffs. This
convinced complainant that respondent purposely withheld his decision in the subject case to pressure her to enter into a
compromise agreement with the plaintiffs.
After evaluating the records, the Office of the Court Administrator found merit in the complaint and recommended that:
The case be re-docketed as a regular administrative complaint; and Respondent Judge be held liable for gross inefficiency
and be ordered to pay a fine of five thousand pesos (P5,000.00) with a stern warning that a repetition of the same act will
be dealt with more severely. The petitioners have gone to the 3 rd division of the supreme court to raise this case.
ISSUE: Won the death of a relative or personal family matters may exculpate the judge from liabilities.

RULING: Pursuant to the Resolution of this Court dated July 15, 2002, both parties filed their respective Manifestations
that they are submitting this case for decision based on the pleadings filed.

Article VIII, Section 15 (2) of the Constitution requires judges of lower courts to decide cases or resolve matters within
three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. Under Administrative Circular No. 28, a case is
considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the evidence of the parties at the termination of the trial. The
ninety-day period for deciding the case shall commence to run from submission of the case for decision without
memoranda; in case the court requires or allows its filing, the case shall be considered submitted for decision upon the
filing of the last memorandum or upon the expiration of the period to do so, whichever is earlier. While we commiserate
with respondent for the untimely death of his daughter, such fact, while mitigating, cannot completely exculpate him from
liability. He could have asked the Court for an extension of the period within which to decide Civil Case No. A-2274
instead of allowing the 90-day period to expire. Or, as complainant aptly suggested, he could have gone on leave during
the time of his mourning if he could not effectively discharge his duties as a judge. We likewise cannot understand why a
letter-request from one of the plaintiffs could cause delay. Nor can we accept his excuse that his designation as Acting
Presiding Judge of another Branch contributed to the delay in the disposition of the case. WHEREFORE, this Court finds
respondent Judge Jules A. Mejia liable for undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. A-2274 and imposes
upon him a fine of P11,000.00.
SUPPLEMENT:
SIBAYAN-JOAQUIN vs. JAVELLANA; A.M. No. RTJ-00-1601; November 13, 2001
FACTS: In a complaint-affidavit, dated 17 September 1999, Eliezer A. Sibayan-Joaquin charged Judge Roberto S.
Javellana, acting presiding judge, with grave misconduct in the performance of official duties, graft and gross ignorance
of the law. Required to comment on the complaint, respondent judge admitted that the decision in Criminal Case No.
RTC-1150 was rendered beyond the ninety-day reglementary period but attributed the delay to his voluminous workload.
Respondent was handling two salas, his original station, RTC Branch 59, designated as being a special court for heinous
crimes, and RTC Branch 57. He explained that he was suffering from hypertension which resulted in his frequent requests
for leave. Respondent judge maintained that the decision in Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 was validly promulgated. He
denied any irregularity in the promulgation of the decision. The matter was referred to the Office of the Court
Administrator ("OCA") for evaluation. In its report of 09 September 2000, the OCA recommended that an investigation be
conducted in order to afford the parties the opportunity to substantiate their respective claims. In its resolution of 23
October 2000, the Court adopted the OCA's recommendation and assigned the case to Associate Justice Bernardo
Abesamis of the Court of Appeals. The Investigating Justice found no irregularity, however, in the promulgation of the
decision. He also found no gross ignorance of the law on the part of respondent. In order to impose disciplinary action on
judges, Justice Abesamis concluded, it should be shown that the error or mistake invoked was gross or patent, malicious,
deliberate or in bad faith, and that a mere error of judgment would not be a ground for disciplinary action.
The Investigating Justice ended his report to the Court by recommending thusly:
1) The charge of gross ignorance of the law against respondent judge be DISMISSED for lack of merit.
2) Respondent judge be held administratively liable for:
a) failure to render judgment in Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 within the period prescribed by law in violation of Sec. 15,
ARTICLE VIII OF THE PHILIPPINE CONSTITUTION
ISSUE: Can a judge exculpate from liabilities with reason such as rigorous workloads and health concerns.
RULING: No.Section 15, Article XVIII, of the Constitution provides that lower courts have three months within which to
decide cases or matters pending before them from the date of submission of such cases or matters for decision or
resolution. He could have asked for an extension of time to decide the case and explain why, but he did not. Any undue
delay in the resolution of cases often amounts to a denial of justice and can easily undermine the people's faith and
confidence in the judiciary. Aware of the heavy caseload of judges, the Court has continued to act with great
understanding on requests for extension of time to decide cases. (a) the complaint against respondent Judge Roberto S.
Javellana for ignorance of the law is DISMISSED for being without basis; (b) said respondent is found administratively
liable for failing to render judgment in Criminal Case No. RTC-1150 within the period prescribed therefor and is hereby
imposed a FINE of TWO THOUSAND PESOS, with warning that a repetition of same or similar acts will be dealt with
more severely than herein imposed; (c) the respondent, finally, is ADMONISHED to constantly be circumspect in his
conduct and dealings with lawyers who have pending cases before him.