MOISES S. BENTULAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE MANUEL P. DUMATOL, RESPONDENT.

Respondent, the incumbent Presiding Judge of Branch 112 of the
Regional Trial Court of Pasay City, was charged with inefficiency and
incompetence in the performance of official duties in a verified letter-complaint,
dated 28 April 1993, addressed to the Honorable Chief Justice through the Court
Administrator. Complainant, who is the
defendant in Civil Case No. 9441–P, alleges in the letter-complaint
that the said case was instituted on 6 February 1984 and was submitted for
decision as early as 29 September 1989. Yet, despite several oral and written requests and motions for its early
decision made by the complainant, the respondent failed to decide the case. More specifically, he alleges that since
eight months after the case was submitted for decision, he had been going to
the sala of the respondent to inquire about the status of the case. On each occasion, a certain Vida Garcia
always informed him that the respondent was either busy or not yet in. He also filed with the respondent’s court an
Ex-parte Motion to Render Decision on 5 May 1990, an Ex-parte Motion
to Resolve Motion to Render Decision on 14 September 1990, and another Motion
to Resolve Motion to Render Decision on 21 December 1990. Then on several occasions during the
succeeding years he followed-up his requests.

On 1 August 1991, Atty. Cynthia Madamba, Clerk of Court of the
respondent’s court, informed the complainant that he had already finished
writing the decision but that it was with the respondent for approval and
signing.

Complainant further avers that in August 1991, he again inquired
about the decision and the respondent personally informed him that he would
resolve the case the following month since he would have to give priority first
to cases involving prisoners. On
account of the actuations of the respondent, the complainant sought assistance
from the Office of the Court Administrator. On 28 October 1991, Atty. Andrew Inocencio of the said Office told the
complainant that the respondent would inform the Office about the case on the
last day of October. But since by
November the said Office had not received any call from the respondent, the
complainant went to the sala of the respondent on 25 November 1991. He was assured by Atty. Madamba that the
decision would be released on 15 December 1991. On 16 December 1991, the respondent again assured the complainant
that the decision would be released before the end of the year. The respondent explained that since he heard
only the last part of the case, he still needed time to study the case
records. On 27 December 1991, the
respondent again assured him that the decision would be released after New
Year.

In his Comment submitted on 16 November 1993 in compliance with
the Resolution of 16 June 1993, the respondent explains that the case was filed
before he became a Judge, that the pre-trial thereon and the reception of the
evidence for the plaintiffs were conducted by Judge Nicanor Silvano, and that
the evidence for the defendant was received by Judge (now CA Justice) Fermin
Martin, Jr. and by Judge Sergio Amonoy. When the latter was designated by this Court to try exclusively criminal
cases, Civil Case No. 9441-P was re-raffled to him (respondent). Since the plaintiffs therein waived the presentation
of rebuttal evidence, he required the parties to submit their respective
memoranda, which they did. Considering
that not all of the stenographic notes have been transcribed, the testimony on
cross-examination of plaintiff Aurelia Mercado was retaken on 10 April 1989
upon motion of the plaintiffs. The
parties then submitted their supplemental memoranda. Plaintiffs submitted a reply memorandum on 15 September 1989. He further claims that a draft of the
decision “has already been prepared sometime in November 1991 but due to
conflicting priorities including preparing decisions in cases involving
detention prisoners, appealed ejectment cases tried under the rules on summary
procedure in the inferior courts and other cases personally heard by him, the
decision in [the] case was not promptly finalized and released”; and that
the “records of this case, as well as, the evidences [sic] submitted by
the parties and the transcript of stenographic notes were all burned in the
fire which gutted the premises of [the] Court in January 1992.” He admits
that “he has failed to promptly render a decision in [the] case after the
parties have submitted their respective memoranda, and is willing to receive
whatever penalty this Court may, considering the circumstances of the case,
deem fit and proper,” but appeals for leniency because his “failure
to decide [the] case without delay is due, principally to the fact that it was
not he who actually heard the evidence for the parties, coupled with the fact
that the docket of [the] Court, since [he] was appointed …. in November 4,
1986, has been clogged with cases with unresolved motions and undecided cases,
so much so that the [J]PDIO had
to retrieve some of the ‘inherited cases’ which the staff of judges of said
office had to decide.”

Complainant filed a Reply to the Comment.

In the Resolution of 8 December 1993, we required the parties to
inform the Court if they were willing to submit this case for decision on the
basis of the pleadings already filed. In separate manifestations, the parties agreed to submit this case on
the basis of such pleadings.

We referred this case to the Office of the Court Administrator
for evaluation, report, and recommendation. In its Memorandum of 25 April 1994, the said Office, after narrating the
foregoing allegations in the complaint and comment, makes the following
observations and evaluation:

“After a careful perusal of the records of the case, we find
Judge Manuel P. Dumatol to be liable of the offense charged.

No less than the Philippine Constitution guarantees that ‘all
persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of their cases before all
judicial, quasi-judicial or administrative bodies’ (Sec. 16 Art. III, Phil.
Constitution).

The Philippine Constitution goes on to say in Art. VIII, Sec. 15
that ‘all cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution
must be decided or resolved x x x within three months for all other lower
courts.’

The Code of Judicial Conduct dictates that ‘he should be prompt in
disposing all matters submitted to him, remembering that justice delayed is
often justice denied.’

The same Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that ‘a judge should
administer justice impartially and without delay.’

Several laws and circulars of this Honorable Court have been
enacted and issued to counter the alarming problem of delay in the
administration of justice. Hence, it is
imperative upon the respondent Judge to
support and implement these laws and circulars by resolving the cases submitted
before him for decision without delay and within the soonest time possible.

From the history of the case culled from the rollo, this is not an
inherited case because it was submitted for decision to respondent Judge. Hence, he should have exhibited more than
casual industry and promptness in disposing this case submitted to him a long
time ago especially when a party was following it up time and again
demonstrating his interest in the early termination of the same.

In the present case, respondent Judge simply lacks the eagerness
and zeal to decide the subject case. The case was submitted for decision on September 1989 and the draft of
the decision was prepared only in November 1991. Worst, the draft was among those gutted by the fire which
occurred in January 1992.

Had the respondent Judge been more dedicated in his work, the case
would have been resolved way before the fire. There would have been no need for reconstitution. Had the respondent Judge been more mindful
that ‘justice delayed is justice denied,’ the case would not have dragged up to
this date.”

and recommends as follows:

“PREMISES CONSIDERED, it is respectfully submitted for the
consideration of this Honorable Court with the recommendation that Judge Manuel
P. Dumatol, RTC, Branch 112, Pasay City be meted a penalty of FIVE THOUSAND
PESOS (P5,000.00) FINE with a stern warning that a repetition of the same and
similar acts or offenses in the future will be dealt with severely.”

We find the evaluation and recommendation to be well-taken and
hereby adopt it.

We wish to add that the respondent has not denied the allegations
of the complainant that the latter made oral requests and filed written motions
for the early decision of the case. Since there is no showing that the respondent had acted on the written
motions, it is safe to assume that he simply disregarded them. Be that as it may, his attention was,
nevertheless, drawn to the fact that the decision was long overdue and that his
period to decide the case under the solemn mandate of Section 15(1), Article
VIII of the 1987 Constitution had long expired. That he had other “priorities” to attend to does not
mitigate his liability because, firstly, such a claim finds no factual support
and, secondly, if the claim were true, then he should have written this Court
and asked for extension of time to decide Civil Case No. 9441-P and other
cases. Obviously, he forgot that the
public-trust character of his office imposes upon him the highest degree of
responsibility and efficiency.

WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent JUDGE MANUEL P.
DUMATOL guilty of gross inefficiency and neglect of duty and he is hereby
ordered to pay a FINE of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00), with a warning that
the commission of the same or similar acts in the future will be dealt with
more severely. Respondent Judge is
further directed to decide Civil Case No. 9441-P, if he still has not done so,
with utmost dispatch.

SO ORDERED.

Cruz, (Chairman), Bellosillo, Quiason, and Kapunan, JJ., concur.