A verified complaint was filed asking the Court to take disciplinary action against respondent Judge for failure to resolve motion to dismiss within the 90-day period fixed by the Constitution. In his comment, respondent explained that the delay was unintentional and was caused by circumstances beyond his control, his defense as the expediente of the case could not be located because it had allegedly been misplaced, and to avoid a repetition of such delay, he caused the preparation of a list of cases and incidents submitted for resolution. Thereafter, the complainant withdrew his complaint. The Court Administrator observed that the delay complained of could have been avoided had respondent Judge earlier adopted a system of checklisting all matters submitted for resolution.

The Supreme Court held that respondent’s failure to adopt a system of checklisting amounted to neglect of duty and inexcusable violation of Sec. 11(1) Article X of the Constitution and Section 5 of the Judiciary Law. He was censured and warned that a more drastic penalty will be imposed for a repetition of the anomaly.

1. CONSTITUTIONAL LAW; SUPREME COURT; ADMINISTRATIVE SUPERVISION OVER LOWER COURTS; ADMINISTRATIVE COMPLAINTS AGAINST JUDGES; UNJUSTIFIED DELAY IN THE RESOLUTION OF MOTIONS, GROUND FOR DISCIPLINARY ACTION. — Where the respondent Judge alleged that the cause of the delay of the resolution of the motion to dismiss was because the expediente of the case could not be located as it had allegedly been misplaced and that the delay was unintentional and was caused by circumstances beyond his control, his defense is not meritorious. The delay complained of could have been avoided had he earlier adopted a system of checklisting all matters submitted for resolution. Because of his failure to devise earlier that system, his violation of the ninety-day period in section 11(l) Art. X of the Constitution and his submission of false certificates of service under section 5 of the Judiciary Law is not excusable. He should be censured and warned that a repetition of the anomaly will subject him to a more drastic penalty.

In Civil Case No. Q-19384 of the Court of First Instance of Rizal, Quezon City Branch V-B, entitled "Spouses Alfonso de Leon, etc. v. Spouses Vicente B. Llanes, etc.," the defendants, as directed by the court, filed a motion to dismiss dated August 10, 1977. To that motion, the plaintiffs interposed an opposition dated August 15, 1977.

The motion was submitted for resolution on October 14, 1977 or after the parties had filed their memoranda. Because of the delay in the resolution of the said motion, plaintiff Alfonso de Leon in a verified complaint dated August 14, 1978 asked this Court to take disciplinary action against respondent Judge. He alleged that, according to his information, the Judge was an intimate friend of defendants’ counsel.

Respondent judge said in his comment that it was only on May 5, 1978 when his attention was called to the said motion to dismiss because Doctor De Leon filed a motion for its early resolution. Respondent judge said that the expediente of the case could not be located because it had allegedly been misplaced.

The respondent said that the delay was unintentional and was caused by circumstances beyond his control. To avoid a repetition of such delay, he caused to be prepared a list of cases and incidents submitted for resolution. He resolved the motion to dismiss in the De Leon case in his order of August 16, 1978 or five days before the herein administrative complaint was filed.chanrobles virtualawlibrary chanrobles.com:chanrobles.com.ph

Lawyer Pedro G. Peralta, in a manifestation dated November 30, 1978, said that after a perusal of respondent’s comment, the complainant decided to desist from pressing his charge and opted to withdraw his complaint.

Justice Lorenzo Relova, the Court Administrator who had been a trial judge for several years, observed that the delay complained of could have been avoided had the respondent earlier adopted a system of checklisting all matters submitted for resolution.

Because of respondent’s failure to devise earlier that system, his violation of the ninety-day period fixed in section 11(1), Article X of the Constitution and his submission of false certificates of service under section 5 of the Judiciary Law is not excusable. (See Serra v. Belarmino, Administrative Matter No. 967-MJ, March 24, 1981.)

Respondent’s neglect of duty is a matter of record. His defense is not meritorious. An investigation of the charge by a Justice of the Court of Appeals is not necessary specially considering complainant’s desistance.chanrobles virtual lawlibrary

WHEREFORE, as recommended by the Court Administrator, the respondent is censured and warned that a more drastic penalty will be imposed for a repetition of that anomaly. A copy of this decision should be attached to his personal record.

SO ORDERED.

Barredo (Chairman), Concepcion Jr., Fernandez and De Castro, JJ., concur.

Abad Santos, J., is on leave.