The Supreme Court’s decision in A.M. RTJ-12-2317 underscores the critical importance of timely disposition of cases by judges, as mandated by the Constitution. Judge Turgano was found guilty of undue delay for failing to render a decision within the prescribed 90-day period, despite citing health issues and personal tragedies. This ruling emphasizes that judges must proactively seek extensions for valid reasons to avoid compromising the efficiency and integrity of the judicial process, ensuring public trust in the prompt administration of justice.

The Case of the Dilatory Decision: Examining Judicial Duty vs. Personal Hardship

This case arose from a complaint filed by Atty. Felino U. Bangalan against Judge Benjamin D. Turgano of the Regional Trial Court, Branch 15, Laoag City. Atty. Bangalan accused Judge Turgano of undue delay, dishonesty, gross ignorance of the law, and partiality in handling Civil Case No. 11140-15, a case concerning ownership and recovery of possession. The core issue revolved around Judge Turgano’s delay in rendering a decision and resolving subsequent motions, as well as his reversal of a previous order. The Supreme Court had to weigh the judge’s constitutional duty to decide cases promptly against his explanations of personal hardships and health issues.

The complainant, Atty. Bangalan, specifically pointed out that Civil Case No. 11140-15 was submitted for decision on May 4, 2007, but Judge Turgano only rendered the decision on August 8, 2008—more than 15 months later, significantly exceeding the 90-day period mandated by Article VIII, Section 15 of the 1987 Constitution. Additionally, the Notice of Appeal and Motion for Execution Pending Appeal, filed in October 2008, were resolved only on September 2, 2009, almost a year later. This delay formed the basis of the charge of undue delay. The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of adhering to deadlines in deciding cases.

The charge of dishonesty stemmed from Judge Turgano’s declaration in his Certificate of Service that he had no unresolved motions submitted for resolution within the reglementary period. Atty. Bangalan argued that this declaration was false, given the delays in resolving the pending motions. Furthermore, the complainant alleged gross ignorance of the law, pointing to Judge Turgano’s reversal of his previous Order dated September 2, 2009, which had granted the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. This reversal, based on the obsolete doctrine cited in Universal Far East Corporation v. Court of Appeals, was seen as a manifestation of partiality towards the opposing party.

In his defense, Judge Turgano attributed the delays to a series of transient ischemic attacks and pulmonary problems. He also cited the deaths of his father and brother during the period when the case was submitted for decision. He argued that his reversal of the September 2, 2009 Order was based on Section 2, Rule 30 of the Rules of Court. Furthermore, he contended that any error in interpreting or applying the Rules of Court should have been addressed through a petition for certiorari at the Court of Appeals (CA), rather than an administrative complaint. He maintained that his orders were based on evidence and applicable law, thus negating the charge of partiality.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) conducted a verification and found that Atty. Bangalan had indeed filed a Petition for Certiorari with the CA, which was docketed as CA-G.R. SP No. 111883. The CA rendered a Decision on January 31, 2011, reinstating the September 2, 2009 Order, in which Judge Turgano had granted the Motion for Execution Pending Appeal. While the OCA acknowledged the delay in rendering the decision, it also noted Judge Turgano’s cited reasons and his lack of prior offenses, recommending a penalty of admonition. The OCA’s findings set the stage for the Supreme Court’s evaluation of the administrative charges against Judge Turgano.

The Supreme Court affirmed the OCA’s finding of undue delay, emphasizing that Judge Turgano failed to substantiate his claim that the delay was due to reasonable circumstances. Citing Reyes v. Paderanga, the Court reiterated the constitutional mandate for lower courts to decide cases within three months from submission. The Court noted that while extensions may be granted for good reasons, Judge Turgano failed to request one. This failure to adhere to the reglementary period and to seek an extension when necessary constituted a violation of judicial duty. The court needed to balance leniency for the judge’s situation and upholding judicial standards.

“The Constitution provides that all lower courts must decide or resolve cases or matters brought before them three months from the time a case or matter is submitted for decision. Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which became effective on June 1, 2004, also provides that judges shall perform all duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.”

Furthermore, the Court referenced Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which mandates judges to perform all duties, including delivering reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. This underscored the ethical dimension of the delay. Despite Judge Turgano’s claims of health issues and family tragedies, the Court found that he did not provide sufficient evidence to support these claims. The absence of medical certificates or any formal request for an extension further weakened his defense. Thus, the Supreme Court focused on the lack of procedural diligence.

Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision is classified as a less serious charge, punishable by suspension from office or a fine. However, considering that this was Judge Turgano’s first offense, the Court applied this mitigating circumstance. Ultimately, the Supreme Court found Judge Benjamin D. Turgano guilty of undue delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 11140-15 and reprimanded him, with a warning that any similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely. The reprimand served as a formal censure, emphasizing the importance of adhering to the prescribed timelines for judicial decisions.

This ruling highlights the judiciary’s commitment to ensuring the timely administration of justice. While the Court acknowledged Judge Turgano’s personal difficulties, it emphasized that judges must proactively manage their caseload and seek extensions when necessary to avoid compromising the efficiency of the judicial process. The decision serves as a reminder to all judges of their constitutional and ethical obligations to decide cases promptly and expeditiously. Additionally, it illustrates the importance of documenting and providing evidence for any circumstances that may cause delays in rendering decisions. The Supreme Court has made it clear that personal hardships are not an excuse for dereliction of duty.

FAQs

What was the key issue in this case?	The key issue was whether Judge Turgano was guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. 11140-15, thereby violating his constitutional and ethical duties as a judge. The Supreme Court examined the facts to determine if the delay was justified.
What is the reglementary period for judges to decide cases?	The 1987 Constitution mandates that all lower courts must decide or resolve cases within three months (90 days) from the time the case is submitted for decision. This requirement ensures the prompt administration of justice.
What happens if a judge cannot meet the 90-day deadline?	If a judge is unable to comply with the 90-day period, they can request an extension from the Supreme Court, provided they have good reasons for the delay. The Court often grants reasonable extensions in recognition of the heavy caseload of trial courts.
What mitigating circumstances did the Court consider in this case?	The Court considered that this was Judge Turgano’s first offense and applied it as a mitigating circumstance. As this was his first offense, he received a lighter sentence, although the court acknowledged that any repeat offenses will result in significantly harsher sentences.
What was the penalty imposed on Judge Turgano?	Judge Turgano was found guilty of undue delay and was reprimanded by the Supreme Court. He also received a warning that any similar offense in the future would be dealt with more severely, reinforcing the importance of efficient judicial conduct.
What evidence did Judge Turgano provide to justify the delay?	Judge Turgano claimed that the delays were due to health reasons and family tragedies, but he did not provide sufficient evidence, such as medical certificates, to support these claims. This lack of documentation weakened his defense.
What is the significance of Canon 6, Sec. 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct?	Canon 6, Sec. 5 mandates that judges perform all duties, including delivering reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. It underscores the ethical dimension of the duty to decide cases in a timely manner.
How does this case affect the public’s perception of the judiciary?	This case underscores the importance of timely justice, which is vital for maintaining public trust and confidence in the judiciary. Delays can erode this trust, so addressing them is essential.
What rule under the rules of court was pertinent in the determination of the penalty?	Under Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or an order, or in transmitting the records of a case, is considered as a less serious charge. Penalties may include 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, but not exceeding P20,000.

This case serves as a critical reminder of the judiciary’s commitment to upholding the principles of timely and efficient justice. The Supreme Court’s decision reinforces the need for judges to diligently manage their caseloads and proactively address any circumstances that may impede their ability to render decisions within the prescribed timeframes. It underscores that while personal hardships are recognized, they must be substantiated and managed in a way that does not compromise the constitutional right of litigants to a timely resolution of their cases.

For inquiries regarding the application of this ruling to specific circumstances, please contact ASG Law through contact or via email at frontdesk@asglawpartners.com.

Disclaimer: This analysis is provided for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific legal guidance tailored to your situation, please consult with a qualified attorney.
Source: ATTY. FELINO U. BANGALAN, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE BENJAMIN D. TURGANO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 15, LAOAG CITY, RESPONDENT., 55065