||| (Sevilla v. Lindo, A.M. No.

MTJ-08-1714, [February 9, 2011])

A trial judge who allows, or abets, or tolerates numerous unreasonable
postponements of the trial, whether out of inefficiency or indolence, or out of bias
towards a party, is administratively liable.

Agreement of the parties;

Absence of the public prosecutor;
Docket inventory;
Absence of the complainant;
Lack of material time
Absence of the lawyer from the PAO

Daniel G. Sevilla

Charged Hon. Francisco S. Lindo, PJ of MeTC, Branch 55, in Malabon

City with delay in the disposition of Criminal Case for violation of BP 22
entitled People v. Nestor Leynes).

Alleged that he was the private complainant which was filed on June 10, Sevilla

Replied
2003, and raffled to Branch 55

Not agree with Judge Lindo's orders of postponement but was only forced to

Testified once in the case, but his testimony pertained only to his
comply with them, and that he affixed his signature to the minutes of hearings
personal circumstances;
only as proof of his personal presence at the hearings, not as a ratification of

After such, Judge Lindo:

what transpired.
o Adjourned the session for lack of material time,
o Persistently reset the subsequent hearings for lack of material
Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)s report:
time;
EVALUATION:

Judge Lindo's indifference was designed to force him to accept the offer
As per the results of the judicial audit conducted, it was revealed that quite a
of an amicable settlement made by the accused;
number of cases that have been submitted for decision remained unacted

Judge Lindo's coercion was manifested in open court and in his

upon.
chamber by telling him in the presence of the accused: Mr. Sevilla, ang
o 23, 17 of which were "undecided" beyond the 90-day day
hirap mo namang pakiusapan. Konting pera lang yan. Bahala ka
reglementary period, 7 cases with pending incident/motion submitted
maghintay sa wala.
for resolution which have been unresolved, 6 of which beyond the
o Violated Rule 1.01, Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
reglementary period.
which requires that a judge should administer justice impartially
o
21 cases with no action taken since their filing in court.
and without delay; that Judge Lindo also violated Section 1,

Other findings:
Rule 135 of the Rules of Court, which mandates that justice be
o Improper recordkeeping;
impartially administered without unnecessary delay;
o Not updated inventory of cases;

Judge Lindo's unreasonable resetting of the hearings 12 times rendered

o 21 inherited cases inside the chambers of Judge Lindo which were
inconsequential his right to the speedy disposition of his case;
submitted for decision way back in the 80's. There were not reflected
o Such were made upon the instance of Judge Lindo, not upon
in the docket inventories submitted to OCA but these were reportedly
motion of the parties.
just found in 2000 while the branch staff were relocating to another
place following a fire that gutted their courthouse in July 2005 and
Judge Lindo
were not properly turned over to him;

Refuted the charge, claiming that the postponements were upon valid
o CAse folders of 175 criminal cases were not presented to the audit
grounds;
team for examination;

Set the initial trial on August 17, 2004, but due to Sevilla's absence on
o
270 criminal cases were not reported/reflected in the docket inventory
said date, he ordered the provisional dismissal of the case upon motion
that was subsequently updated up to 2007;
of the Defense and with the express conformity of the accused and the
public prosecutor; that in the interest of fairness, he set aside the
RECOMMENDATION:
provisional dismissal and reinstated the case upon motion of Sevilla;

Instant complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and

Set the initial trial on October 19, 2004, but the hearing was reset on
respondent Judge be found GUILTY of Delay in the Disposition of Cases
December 7, 2004, and was further reset on February 1, 2005 due to
tantamount to Inefficiency and Incompetence in the Performance of Official
his official leave of absence.
Duties

Judge Lindo cited the other dates of hearings and the corresponding
reasons for their postponement.

Meted a fine of P21,000.00 to be deducted from the retirement benefits

of the herein respondent Judge who was compulsorily retired from the
service effective July 24, 2007.

"to be prompt in disposing of all matters submitted to him, remembering

that justice delayed is often justice denied."

Court

Found him guilty of simple misconduct and undue delay in rendering a

That his conduct proceeded from his bias towards the accused rendered his acts and
decision
omissions as gross misconduct. It is settled that the misconduct is grave if it involves

Fine 20K to be deducted from 100K retirement benefits

any of the additional elements of corruption, willful intent to violate the law, or disregard
of long-standing rules, which must be established by substantial evidence; otherwise,
Issue: WON FORMER JUDGE LINDO VIOLATED CANON 1, RULE 1.02 OF the misconduct is only simple.
Penalty: Gross misconduct
THE CODE OF JUDICIAL CONDUCT

1.Dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court
may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any
Ruling: YES. We agree with and adopt the report and recommendation of the
public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations. Provided,
OCA.
however, that the forfeiture of benefits shall in no case include accrued leave
credits;
Although the postponement of a hearing in a civil or criminal case may at times

2.Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three
be unavoidable, the Court disallows undue or unnecessary postponements of
(3) but not exceeding six (6) months; or
court hearings, simply because they cause unreasonable delays in the

3. Fine of more than P20,000.00 but not exceeding P40,000.00.

administration of justice and, thus, undermine the people's faith in the Judiciary,
aside from aggravating the financial and emotional burdens of the litigants.

Postponements and resettings should be allowed only upon meritorious WHEREFORE, we find and declare respondent retired Judge Francisco S. Lindo
guilty of grave misconduct, and, accordingly, punish him with a fine of P21,000.00,
grounds.
to be deducted from his retirement benefits.

Trial judges to adopt a firm policy against improvident postponements.

BP22 adheres to the strict judicial policy on postponements

Prosecutions involving violations of BP 22, whose prompt resolution has

been ensured as it is now covered by the Rule on Summary Procedure.

Yet, Judge Lindo postponed hearings for lack of material time without
bothering to state the specific causes for such

He also reset hearings supposedly upon the agreement of the parties,

which the complainant credibly denied

As there is an absence of any rationality for his actions in the

handling the simple BP 22 case involving only P2,000.00, it can be
adjudged such actuations as smacking either of indolence and
utter inefficiency, or of bias, if not hostility, towards Sevilla, or
both.

The incumbent Presiding Judge of the Metropolitan Trial Court, Branch 55, in Malabon
City is directed to proceed with the trial of Criminal Case No. J-L00-4260 with dispatch,
and to decide it within the required period if the case has not yet been resolved.
||| (Cabaseres v. Tandinco, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-11-1793, [October 19, 2011])
This is an administrative complaint filed by complainant Antonio Y. Cabasares
(Cabasares) against respondent, Judge Filemon A. Tandinco, Jr. (respondent Judge) of
(MTCC), 8th Judicial Region, Calbayog City, Western Samar, for undue delay in
rendering a decision.

February 21, 1994

Cabasares filed a Complaint for Malicious Mischief against a certain Rodolfo

Hebaya.
Jude Lindo made or allowed too many unreasonable postponements that

Docketed and assigned to the branch of respondent Judge.

inevitably delayed the proceedings and prevented the prompt disposition
of BP22 case out of manifest bias in favor of the accused, to the prejudice
February 27, 200
of Sevilla.

Subbmitted for decision, but respondent judge had yet to render a decision by

Thus, he flagrantly violated the letter and spirit both of Rule 1.02 of
the time the complaint was filed on November 6, 2009, which was a clear
the Code of Judicial Conduct, which enjoined all judges to
violation of Section 15 (1), Article 8 of the Constitution and Canon 3, Rule 3.05
administer justice impartially and without delay; and of Canon 6 of
of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
the Canons of Judicial Ethics, which required him as a trial judge

Respondent Judge

Claimed that he only came to know of the present administrative Respondent Judge failed to render a decision within the reglementary period or to even
complaint against him on December 7, 2009, thru Atty. Elizabeth ask for an extension of time.

"The Court, in its aim to dispense speedy justice, is not unmindful of

Tanchioco, head of the Performance Audit Team at MTCC, Calbayog
City.
circumstances that justify the delay in the disposition of the cases assigned to
judges. It is precisely for this reason why the Court has been sympathetic to

He left for Tacloban City upon advice of his doctor and was confined at
requests for extensions of time within which to decide cases and resolve
Divine Word Hospital because of high blood pressure
matters and incidents related thereto. When a judge sees such circumstances

before the reglementary period ends, all that is needed is to simply ask the

On leave due to Christmas time and due to his heavy workload, the
Court, with the appropriate justification, for an extension of time within which to
case slipped his mind.
decide the case. Thus, a request for extension within which to render a

Later, however, a decision on the case was prepared and promulgated

decision filed beyond the 90-day reglementary period is obviously a subterfuge
on January 14, 2010.
to both the constitutional edict and the Code of Judicial Conduct."

Thus, respondent Judge prayed that his explanation be deemed

Evidently, respondent Judge failed to do any of these options.

sufficient considering that he had already retired on January 15, 2010.
The Court cannot accept respondent Judge's explanation either that he failed to
render the decision because he required medical attention.
Found the explanation of respondent judge inexcusable.

The case had long been due for decision before he was even hospitalized

Recommended:
in 2009.
o RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;

His admission that the case "may have escaped his mind" only shows
o Former Judge Filemon A. Tandinco, Jr. be found GUILTY of
that he failed to adopt an effective court management system to carefully
track the cases for decision or resolution.
Undue Delay in rendering a Decision and violating Canon 3,

"A judge is expected to keep his own record of cases and to note therein the
Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct,
o FINED in the amount of 20K which shall be taken from his
status of each case so that they may be acted upon accordingly and promptly.
compulsory retirement benefits.

He must adopt a system of record management and organize his docket in

order to bolster the prompt and effective dispatch of business."
HELD: Agrees w/ OCA
Sections 9 and 11, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution
SC, 15 classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a LESS SERIOUS

Requires lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters for CHARGE with the following administrative sanctions:
decision or final resolution within 3 months from date of
Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than 1 nor
submission.
more than 3 months; or

Complementary to this constitutional provision is Canon 1, Rule

Fine of more than 10K but not exceeding 20K

1.02, of the Code of Judicial Conduct which instructs that a judge
should administer justice impartially and without delay.

Similarly, Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins Respondent Judge has already retired from the service

Only alternative left is to impose a fine.

judges to dispose of their business promptly and to decide cases within

Accordingly, the Court sets the fine to P11K taking into account the
the required period. All cases or matters must be decided or resolved by
all lower courts within a period of 3 months from submission. ]
extent of delay it caused to the parties in said case. This fine shall be
deducted from his retirement benefits.
Administrative Circular No. 3-99

Reminded all judges to meticulously observe the periods prescribed by Once again, the Court cautions judges to be prompt in the performance of their solemn
the Constitution for deciding cases because failure to comply with the duty as dispenser of justice, for any undue delay corrodes the people's confidence in the
said period transgresses the parties' constitutional right to speedy judicial system. Delay not only fortifies the belief of the people that the wheels of justice
grind ever so slowly, but provokes suspicion, however unfair, of ulterior motives on the
disposition of their cases.

Failure to decide cases within the 90D reglementary period may warrant part of the judge. 17
imposition of administrative sanctions on the erring judge.
OCA

WHEREFORE, retired Judge Filemon A. Tandinco, Jr. of the Municipal Trial Court
in Cities, 8th Judicial Region, Calbayog City, Western Samar is found GUILTY of
undue delay in rendering a decision. Accordingly, he is ordered to pay a FINE in
the amount of ELEVEN THOUSAND PESOS (P11,000.00) to be deducted from
the retirement benefits due and payable to him.
Let a copy of this decision be forwarded to the Office of the Court Administrator
so that the remaining benefits due respondent are promptly released, unless
there exists another lawful cause for withholding the same.