Source: http://lawlibrary.chanrobles.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=82960:56862&catid=1582&Itemid=566
Timestamp: 2019-04-19 23:01:13+00:00

Document:
A.M. No. MTJ–12–1806 (Formerly A.M. No. 11–4–36–MTCC), April 07, 2014 - OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE BORROMEO R. BUSTAMANTE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN, Respondent.
OFFICE OF THE COURT ADMINISTRATOR, Complainant, v. JUDGE BORROMEO R. BUSTAMANTE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, ALAMINOS CITY, PANGASINAN, Respondent.
The present administrative matter arose from the judicial audit of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Alaminos City, Pangasinan, then presided by Judge Borromeo R. Bustamante (Bustamante). Judge Bustamante retired on November 6, 2010.
I have the honor to inform you that I have decided all the cases, Civil, LRC and Criminal Cases submitted before my last day in office on November 5, 2010 except Civil Cases Nos. 1937 (Bustillo vs. Sps. Rabago) and 2056 (Cale vs. Pader, et al.) because of lack of TSN taken when I was not yet the Presiding Judge. I found out that there is [a] need to retake the testimonies of the witness concerned so as to attain substantial justice.
As to why I failed to decide the said cases within the reglementary period, it was because of the volume of work in this court. As it was noticed by the Auditors when they came over to audit, I have already started deciding with drafts attached to the records but I was overtaken by more pressing matters that I have to take immediate attention, like urgent motions, motions to dismiss, motions to quash, approval of bails. All of these are in addition to my trial duties.
I have to work as early as 7:30 o’clock in the morning, and sometimes at 7:00 o’clock, with the desire to finish everything on time. I burned my candle at night just [to] comply with my duties within the time frame but because of human frailties, I failed to do so on time because as I said[,] of the volume of work in this court. But nonetheless I have decided all the cases submitted for decision before I retired except, as above stated, Civil Cases Nos. 1737 and 2056 because of the reasons already stated.
In Civil Cases, I have resolved the demurrer to evidence in Civil Cases Nos. 1668 and 2132. However, the motion to dismiss by defendant Celeste in Civil Case No. 2222, considering the opposition of the plaintiff because of their counterclaim, I believed the motion needs further hearing, hence, the motion was not resolved. Similarly, the motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 2254 needs further hearing, and if no order setting the motion for hearing, it may be an oversight because of the submission of several cases for decision almost at the same time.
In Criminal Cases, I have resolved the demurrer to evidence in Crim. Cases Nos. 9015 & 9016 (People vs. Paltep vda. De Perio) and Crim. Cases Nos. 9148 & 9149 (People vs. Anselmo, Jr.) while Crim. Case No. 9196 was set for further hearing.
On the motion to suspend proceedings in Crim. Cases Nos. 9190 & 9191, it may have been an oversight because these cases are the off–shoots of Civil Case No. 2222 and pre–trial conference for the marking of documentary evidence has been subsequently set but the counsel for the accused failed to appear.
The motion to dismiss in Crim. Cases Nos. 8615, 8616 & 8617, was not resolved because of the prayer of the parties in open court for them to await the resolution of the civil cases they filed before the Regional Trial Court, as they are working for the settlement of these civil cases, which may have [an] effect in these cases.
In support of his compliance, Judge Bustamante submitted to the OCA copies of the decisions and resolutions he referred to in his letter.
(1) Judge Bustamante had decided 33 out of the 35 cases for decision in his court. Of the 33 cases decided by Judge Bustamante, 13 were still within the reglementary period while 20 were already beyond the reglementary period. Of the 20 cases Judge Bustamante had decided beyond the reglementary period, 10 were decided more than a year after their respective due dates (ranging from 1 year and 8 days to 4 years and 7 months beyond the due dates) and 10 were decided within a year after their respective due dates (ranging from 5 days to 6 months beyond the due dates).
(2) Judge Bustamante had also resolved 6 out of the 23 cases with pending incidents in his court, all of which were resolved beyond their respective reglementary periods (ranging from 5 days to 3 years, 8 months, and 16 days after the due dates). As for the 17 other cases with pending incidents in his court, Judge Bustamante reasoned that (a) the motions require further hearing; (b) there is a need to await the resolution of other cases pending before other courts; and (c) oversight. The OCA noted, though, that Judge Bustamante failed to submit any order setting the pending incidents for hearing or holding in abeyance the resolution of the same until the related cases before other courts have already been decided.
PREMISES CONSIDERED, we respectfully recommend that retired Judge Borromeo R. Bustamante, formerly of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Alaminos City, Pangasinan, be FINED in the amount of P20,000.00 for gross inefficiency.
In a Resolution7 dated February 8, 2012, the case was re–docketed as a regular administrative matter.
Judge Bustamante wrote the Court a letter dated July 3, 2013, stating that although he already retired from the service on November 6, 2010, he has yet to receive his retirement benefits (except for his accumulated leave credits), because of the pendency of the instant administrative matter against him. Consequently, Judge Bustamante prayed that the administrative matter be resolved soonest so he could already receive his retirement benefits or that his retirement benefits be released but a certain amount commensurate to the fine that the Court might impose be withheld.
The Court agrees with the findings and recommendation of the OCA.
A judge is mandated to render a decision not more than 90 days from the time a case is submitted for decision. Judges are to dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the period specified in the Constitution, that is, 3 months from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum. Failure to observe said rule constitutes a ground for administrative sanction against the defaulting judge, absent sufficient justification for his non–compliance therewith.
A judge cannot choose his deadline for deciding cases pending before him. Without an extension granted by this Court, the failure to decide even a single case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.
The Code of Judicial Conduct, specifically Canon 3, Rule 3.05 mandates judges to attend promptly to the business of the court and decide cases within the periods prescribed by law and the Rules. Under the 1987 Constitution, lower court judges are also mandated to decide cases within 90 days from submission.
Judges must closely adhere to the Code of Judicial Conduct in order to preserve the integrity, competence and independence of the judiciary and make the administration of justice more efficient. Time and again, we have stressed the need to strictly observe this duty so as not to negate our efforts to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts.
A member of the bench cannot pay mere lip service to the 90–day requirement; he/she should instead persevere in its implementation.11 Heavy caseload and demanding workload are not valid reasons to fall behind the mandatory period for disposition of cases.12 The Court usually allows reasonable extensions of time to decide cases in view of the heavy caseload of the trial courts. If a judge is unable to comply with the 90–day reglementary period for deciding cases or matters, he/she can, for good reasons, ask for an extension and such request is generally granted.13 But Judge Bustamante did not ask for an extension in any of these cases. Having failed to decide a case within the required period, without any order of extension granted by the Court, Judge Bustamante is liable for undue delay that merits administrative sanction.
The OCA reported that contrary to his claim, Judge Bustamante substantially heard Civil Case Nos. 1937 and 2056, until the two cases were submitted for decision on November 20, 2009 and February 27, 2010, respectively. Even if it were true that the two cases were heard by the previous presiding judge of the MTCC, there is no showing that from the time the cases had been submitted for decision until Judge Bustamante’s retirement on November 6, 2010, Judge Bustamante made an effort to have the TSN completed. Although technically, the 90–day period would have started to run only upon the completion of the TSN, the Court finds Judge Bustamante’s lack of effort to have the TSN completed as the root cause for the delay in deciding the two cases.
The Court is likewise unconvinced that the pending incidents in several cases were left unresolved because of the need for further hearings in the same. The incidents were already submitted for resolution and, as the OCA observed, Judge Bustamante only saw the need for further hearings in said cases after the conduct of the judicial audit. In addition, Judge Bustamante did not submit any order setting the cases for hearing.
There is no dispute that Judge Bustamante failed to decide cases and resolve pending incidents within the reglementary period, and without authorized extension from the Court and valid reason for such failure, Judge Bustamante is administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision or order.
Under the amendments to Rule 14016 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge, for which the respondent judge shall be penalized with either (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00, but not more than P20,000.00.
Considering the significant number of cases and pending incidents left undecided/unresolved or decided/resolved beyond the reglementary period by Judge Bustamante; as well as the fact that Judge Bustamante had already retired and can no longer be dismissed or suspended, it is appropriate to impose upon him a penalty of a fine amounting to P20,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds retired Judge Borromeo R. Bustamante, former Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Alaminos City, Pangasinan, GUILTY of undue delay in rendering decisions and orders, and imposes upon him a FINE of P20,000.00, to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
4 The letter was dated November 8, 2010 at the beginning, but dated November 11, 2010 at the end.
8Re: Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in the RTC, Br. 54, Bacolod City, 537 Phil. 1, 13 (2006).
9 562 Phil. 301, 313–314 (2007).
10 Office of the Court Administrator v. Garcia–Blanco, 522 Phil. 87, 99 (2006).
11Office of the Court Administrator v. Bagundang, 566 Phil. 149, 157–158 (2008).
12Office of the Court Administrator v. Santos, A.M. No. MTJ–11–1787 (Formerly A.M. No. 08–5–146–MeTC), October 11, 2012, 684 SCRA 1, 10.
13Tan v. Judge Estoconing, 500 Phil. 392, 400–401 (2005).
14 422 Phil. 246, 286–287 (2001).
15 Office of the Court Administrator v. Doyon, 592 Phil. 235, 247 (2008).

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