Is illness an acceptable and valid excuse for a judge who incurs delay in resolving a case submitted to him for decision? This is the question that came up in this case of the Regional Trial Court Judge (the Judge).
The case involved here is a Land Registration Case (LRC) filed in the branch of the Judge where the respondent was Zeny. On March 15, 2004, after presentation of evidence by both parties, the Judge issued an Order giving them 15 days within which to file their respective memoranda after which the case would be submitted for decision. Zeny and her opponent complied. Hence on April 9, 2004, the case was submitted for decision.
However, it was only on July 30, 2007 or more than three years since the case was submitted for decision when the Judge rendered a verdict against Zeny and in favor of the adverse party. Zeny was naturally disappointed because she waited for three years only to lose the case. So, aside from filing an appeal against the decision, she also filed an administrative complaint against the Judge for dereliction of duty due to delay in the disposition of the case filed against her. Zeny based her complaint on the Constitution itself which requires judges of the lower courts to decide the case submitted for their decision within three months (Section 15 (1) Article VIII).
The Judge did not deny that he incurred delay in disposing of the case. However, he claimed that he was indisposed since the latter part of 2004. Then he narrated that in January 2005 he was diagnosed of diabetes; on November 3, 2005 his cataract on the left eye was removed while that on his right eye was extracted on April 4, 2006; and on October 26-28, 2007, he was hospitalized due to heart complications. He also explained that the delay was partly due to heavy pressure of work. Could the Judge be excused for the delay?
No. The case was submitted for decision as early as April 2004 while the Judge claimed to be indisposed only towards the end of 2004. He was not constantly ill from the time the case was submitted for resolution in April 2004 until its promulgation in July 2007 as he was not absent from work for prolonged periods in between those dates. Moreover removal of cataract from both eyes does not entail prolonged confinement. In fact the Judge said that he was hospitalized only on October 26-28, 2007. At any rate the confinement occurred after the rendition of the judgment in July, 2007.
Besides granting that the illness hindered the efficient performance of his functions, all he had to do was to request for an extension of time within which to decide, but he did not. So it is incumbent upon him to dispose of the cases assigned to him without undue delay, because justice delayed is justice denied.
Heavy caseloads heaped on the shoulders of every trial court judge cannot also excuse them from doing their mandated duty to resolve cases with diligence and dispatch. Under the circumstance all that they have to do is to request for an extension of time since it will almost invariably be granted.
The honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered but also by the expediency with which disputes are resolved. Procrastination among members of the judiciary in rendering decisions and taking appropriate actions on the cases before them not only causes great injustice to the parties involved but also invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge, in addition to the fact that it erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary, lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute. So the Judge is guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision in the LRC case and is fined in the amount of P11,000 with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense will be dealt with more severely (Delos Reyes vs. Cruz etc., AM RTJ-2152, January 18, 2010).
Note: Books containing compilation of my articles on Labor Law and Criminal Law (Vols. I and II) are now available. Call tel. 7249445.
* * *
E-mail at: jcson@pldtdsl.net.