EMIL J. BIGGEL, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE FERNANDO VIL. PAMINTUAN, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 3, BAGUIO CITY, RESPONDENT.

Biggel versus Pamintuan

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Emil Biggel against Judge Fernando Vil. Pamintuan of the Regional Trial Court of Baguio City, Branch 3. The complaint charges the judge with manifest partiality, gross misconduct, ignorance of the law, and unjust and malicious delay in resolving incidents in the estafa case filed against Biggel. The case matters because it is a clean illustration of a judge's constitutional and ethical duty to resolve pending motions promptly, and of the administrative sanction that follows when that duty is breached.

Procedural History

Biggel filed a verified complaint dated 5 September 2006 before the Supreme Court. The Office of the Court Administrator investigated and, in a report dated 3 December 2007, found the respondent judge guilty of undue delay in rendering an order, recommending a fine of 20,000 pesos. The Supreme Court noted the report and directed the parties to manifest whether they were willing to submit the case for resolution on the pleadings. Both parties manifested their willingness, and the case was resolved as an original administrative action in the Supreme Court.

Facts

An estafa complaint was filed against Biggel. The assistant city prosecutor issued a resolution recommending the filing of an information with bail of 60,000 pesos, allegedly without preliminary investigation and without a subpoena to Biggel, on the claim that he had no address on record. The recommended bail was later increased to 600,000 pesos. Biggel's counsel then filed a motion for reinvestigation before the respondent judge, praying that the criminal case be remanded for preliminary investigation.

The motion was set for hearing on 13 January 2006. The judge ordered the public prosecutor to comment and reset the hearing to 25 January 2006. When no comment was filed, the hearing was reset to 1 March 2006. On that date, the parties were brought into the judge's chambers, and upon the judge's prodding, Biggel's counsel agreed to give the prosecutor five more days, or until 6 March 2006, to file a comment, with Biggel given the same period to reply. The comment was filed on 6 March 2006 and received by Biggel on 10 March 2006. On 7 March 2006, without awaiting Biggel's reply, the judge denied the motion for reinvestigation.

Biggel filed a motion for inhibition and a motion for reconsideration on 23 March 2006. The judge denied the inhibition and directed the prosecutor to comment on the reconsideration. Despite the prosecutor's failure to comment and Biggel's repeated motions for resolution, the reconsideration was granted only by order dated 14 July 2006, received on 26 July 2006, directing reinvestigation within thirty days. The respondent judge later voluntarily inhibited himself from the criminal case on 26 September 2006.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge is guilty of undue delay in rendering an order, in violation of Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Whether or not the penalty of a fine of 20,000 pesos is the proper sanction for the less serious charge of undue delay.

Applicable Provisions

Section 9 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, on less serious charges, provides:

Section 9. Less Serious Charges. Less serious charges include: 1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case.

This is the charge on which the respondent judge was found liable.

Section 11, paragraph B, of the same Rule provides the penalties:

B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed: Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

This fixes the range from which the Court drew the fine it imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court found the respondent judge guilty of undue delay. It stressed that the Constitution mandates that lower courts dispose of their cases promptly and decide them within three months from the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum, and that Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires judges to dispose of court business promptly. The Court held that the judge not only delayed the submission for resolution of the motion for reinvestigation but also delayed the submission of the motion for reconsideration. It noted that the motion for reinvestigation was filed in January 2006, yet the reinvestigation was granted only on 26 July 2006, clearly beyond the mandated period.

On the second issue, the Court found the recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator to be in order and imposed a fine of 20,000 pesos, the maximum under Section 11, paragraph B, of Rule 140. The Court also noted the respondent judge's prior administrative cases, including a preventive suspension, a one-year suspension, a fine with reprimand, and an admonition, and issued a stern warning that a repetition would be dealt with more severely.

Doctrine

A judge must dispose of court business promptly, and delay in resolving pending motions and incidents within the prescribed period violates Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge under Section 9 of Rule 140, punishable by suspension or a fine of more than 10,000 pesos but not exceeding 20,000 pesos under Section 11, paragraph B. The constitutional requirement that lower courts decide cases within three months from the filing of the last pleading is designed to prevent delay in the administration of justice, for justice delayed is justice denied.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Fernando Vil. Pamintuan guilty of violating Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and imposed on him a fine of 20,000 pesos, with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

Memorize this line: undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge under Section 9 of Rule 140, punishable by a fine of more than 10,000 pesos but not exceeding 20,000 pesos. Examiners use this case to test the administrative liability of judges for delay and the range of penalties for less serious charges.