RUBEN BALAGOT, PETITIONER, VS. JUDGE EMILIO OPINION, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 56, MALABON, METRO MANILA, RESPONDENT.

Balagot versus Opinion

The Case

This is an administrative case against a municipal trial judge for the delay of more than three years in deciding a criminal case submitted to him for decision. Ruben Balagot, a private complainant, filed a sworn letter complaint against Judge Emilio Opinion of the Municipal Trial Court of Malabon, Metro Manila. The case matters because it fixes the rule that the ninety-day period to decide a case runs from the date the case is submitted for decision, and that neither a heavy workload nor a stenographer's failure to transcribe notes excuses a judge from that deadline.

Procedural History

The complaint was a sworn letter dated July 13, 1990. The Supreme Court required the respondent to comment, and he filed his comment with explanation. The Court then referred the matter to the Executive Judge of the Regional Trial Court of Malabon for investigation, report, and recommendation. The investigator judge found that the respondent had admitted a delay of more than three years, held that the complainant's withdrawal of the complaint was of no moment, and recommended that the respondent be found guilty of neglect of duty and fined. The case was resolved by the Supreme Court in its administrative jurisdiction.

Facts

Criminal Case Number 1138-85, entitled People of the Philippines versus Emilio Garcia, was tried before the respondent judge. The trial was postponed several times, and the case was considered submitted for decision on July 23, 1986. Judgment was rendered only on February 1, 1990, almost three years and eight months later.

In his comment, the respondent did not deny the delay. He blamed it on two things: his stenographer's failure to transcribe the stenographic notes despite two memoranda directing her to do so, and his designation as Acting Judge of Branch 55 of the same court from May 1987 to June 1988, which he said left him overloaded with cases and caused him to forget to follow up the status of the case.

At the investigation, the complainant appeared without counsel and twice asked for resettings. On January 15, 1991, still without counsel, he manifested that he was withdrawing his complaint because he found the respondent's comment meritorious. The investigator judge nevertheless ruled that the withdrawal did not matter, since the respondent had admitted the delay and it is not for the complainant to decide whether the explanation is meritorious.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of neglect of duty for deciding the criminal case beyond the ninety-day period.
• Whether or not the respondent's reasons, namely the failure of his stenographer to transcribe the notes and his designation as Acting Judge of another branch, excuse the delay.
• Whether or not the complainant's withdrawal of the complaint bars the administrative proceeding.

Applicable Provisions

Section 5 of Republic Act Number 296, the Judiciary Act, provides:

Section 5. Ten days after the last day of the period fixed by law for the rendition of judgment, the clerk of the court shall forward to the Department of Justice a statement of the cases submitted for decision and not yet decided, and of the reasons for the delay.

This provision, read with the constitutional mandate, fixes the ninety-day period within which the respondent was bound to decide the criminal case.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the respondent guilty of neglect of duty. The period to decide a case is reckoned from the date the case was submitted for decision, and the respondent decided it long after the ninety-day period had lapsed.

On the second issue, the Court held that the respondent's reasons do not constitute a defense. His designation as Acting Judge came only in May 1987, seven months after the decision was already due on October 21, 1986, so it cannot relieve him of the duty to decide within the reglementary period. As for the untranscribed notes, the Court said:

A delay in the transcription of stenographic notes cannot be considered a valid reason for the delay in rendering judgment in a case.

The Court added that judges are directed to take down notes of the salient portions of the hearing and to prepare their decisions without waiting for the transcript, and that with or without the transcribed notes, the ninety-day period must be adhered to.

On the third issue, the Court agreed with the investigator that the withdrawal was of no moment, because the respondent had admitted the delay and it is not for the complainant to decide whether the explanation is meritorious.

Doctrine

A judge must decide a case within ninety days from the date it is submitted for decision, as required by the Constitution and Section 5 of Republic Act Number 296. The period is reckoned from submission for decision, not from any later event. A heavy workload, an acting designation in another branch, and the stenographer's failure to transcribe notes are not valid excuses; judges must take their own notes and proceed without waiting for the transcript. Once a judge admits the delay, the complainant's withdrawal of the complaint does not bar administrative liability, because the duty to decide promptly is owed to the public and not to the complainant alone.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Emilio Opinion guilty of neglect of duty and imposed on him a fine of ten thousand pesos, payable to the Court within ten days from notice, with a copy of the resolution attached to his personal records.

Remember This

Memorize the line that with or without the transcribed stenographic notes, the ninety-day period for deciding cases must be adhered to. Examiners use this case to test the reckoning of the ninety-day period and to reject workload and transcription delay as excuses for a judge's neglect of duty.