Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&amp;view=article&amp;id=50063:am-mtj-07-1685-2007-1&amp;catid=1496&amp;Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-22 02:09:21+00:00

Document:
In the 16 March 2004 hearing, Judge Mondragon still failed to act on Juson's Motion for Intervention despite the presence of all the parties before his court. In his Order,5 Judge Mondragon stated that "in view of the fact that the court has not yet acted on the Motion for Intervention of Gideon Juson, the court resets the hearing today to give time for the court to act on the said motion. After the court has acted on the Motion, the case will be set for initial trial."
Clearly, the Motion for Intervention had already been filed and had become substantial for resolution on or before 16 March 2004. Thus, even if the reckoning period for the 3-month period within which to resolve said motion is on 16 March 2004, still there was delayed action as the Motion for Intervention was resolved only on 17 October 2005 or more than 1' years after its submission for resolution.
Judge Mondragon further presented as an excuse for the delay in resolving Juson's Motion for Intervention the additional work given to him in supervising three courts at a time, to wit: as Presiding Judge of MCTC Makilala-Tulunan, Cotabato; as Acting Judge of MTC Magpet, Cotabato; and as Acting Judge of MCTC Roxas-Antipas-Arakan, Cotabato. This will not exonerate him. His failure to decide the case on time cannot be ignored. As this Court ruled in EspaÃ±ola v. Panay,19 if the case load of the judge prevents the disposition of cases within the reglementary periods, again, he should ask this Court for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the cases involved. This is to avoid or dispel any suspicion that something sinister or corrupt is going on. The records of this administrative matter do not show that any attempt was made by Judge Mondragon to make such a request. Instead, he preferred to keep the case pending, enshrouding the same in his silence.
All told, this Court finds Judge Mondragon guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision in Civil Case No. 355 which, under Section 9(1), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, is classified as a less serious charge. Under Section 11(B) of the same Rule, the penalty for such charge is suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
Ynares-Santiago, J., Chairperson, Austria-Martinez, Nachura and Reyes, JJ., concur.
3 Id. at p. 5.
4 Id. at p. 6.
5 Id. at p. 8.
12 Gachon v. Devera, Jr., G.R. No. 116695, 20 June 1997, 274 SCRA 540, 548-549, citing Cf. Valdez v. Ocumen, 106 Phil. 929, 933 (1960) and Alvero v. De la Rosa, 76 Phil. 428, 434 (1946).
13 Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of the Cases in RTC-Br. 138, Makati City, 325 Phil. 111, 118 (1996).
14 Office of the Court Administrator v. Javellana, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1737, 9 September 2004, 438 SCRA 1, 14.
17 Office of the Court Administrator v. Butalid, 355 Phil. 337, 350 (1998).
18 Office of the Court Administrator v. Quizon, 427 Phil. 63, 76 (2002).
19 A.M. No. RTJ-95-1325, 4 October 1995, 248 SCRA 684, 687, citing Cruz v. Basa, A.M. No. MTJ-91 - 598, 9 February 1993, 218 SCRA 551, 557.
20 Gonzalez-Decano v. Siapno, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1279, 1 March 2001, 353 SCRA 269, 278.
21 Re: Report of Deputy Court Administrator Bernardo T. Ponferada Re: Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 26, Argao, Cebu, A.M. No. 00-4-09-SC, 23 February 2005, 452 SCRA 125, 133.
22 Celino v. Judge Abrogar, 315 Phil. 305, 312 (1995).
23 Re: Judicial Audit of the RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City, Presided Over by Hon. Ernesto R. Gutierrez, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1950, 13 February 2006, 482 SCRA 310, 318.
24 Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in the Regional Trial Court, Br. 54, Bacolod City, A.M. No. 06-4-219-RTC, 2 November 2006, 506 SCRA 505, 520.
25 Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 22, Manila, A.M. No. 00-1-10-RTC, 10 September 2004, 438 SCRA 111, 125-126.
26 Castillo v. Cortes, A.M. No. RTJ-93-1082, 25 July 1994, 234 SCRA 398.

References: v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v. 
 v.