Amar vs. Aguirre, Jr.

A judge's failure to resolve pending motions within the 90-day reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and violates Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct; a judge must promptly deny even a legally untenable motion rather than leave it unresolved, and the subsequent satisfaction of the claim does not moot the administrative complaint.

Constancia Amar held a favorable NLRC judgment for wage differentials in Case No. A-593-81, "Constancia Amar vs. Hda. Fanny and Dioscoro Rubin," execution of which was pursued against the Estate of Spouses Dioscoro and Emperatriz Rubin. Special Proceedings No. 28, "Intestate Estate of Spouses Dioscoro & Emperatriz Rubin," was pending before Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, with Feliciano Rubin as judicial administrator. Section 3, Rule 88 of the Rules of Court limits the authority to dispose of estate property to the executor or administrator, a provision later invoked in the proceedings.

Constancia Amar obtained a favorable decision for wage differentials in a labor case, Case No. A-593-81, "Constancia Amar vs. Hda. Fanny and Dioscoro Rubin," before the National Labor Relations Commission. A writ of execution was issued by the NLRC against the Estate of Spouses Rubin. In Special Proceedings No. 28, "Intestate Estate of Spouses Dioscoro & Emperatriz Rubin," pending before Judge Jose Y. Aguirre, Jr. at the Regional Trial Court, Branch 55, Himamaylan, Negros Occidental, respondent judge issued an order dated November 16, 1993 directing the judicial administrator of the estate, Feliciano Rubin, to settle Amar's claim.

On April 27, 1994, complainant filed a motion for the issuance of an order of contempt against the judicial administrator for not heeding the court order; the Court later refers to this motion as having been filed on May 4, 1994. Respondent judge failed to resolve the motion for more than three years. Suspecting possible collusion between respondent judge and the judicial administrator, complainant sought the assistance of the Office of the Court Administrator. On June 28, 1996, Atty. Napoleon Corral, counsel for complainant Amar in Special Proceedings No. 28, filed a verified complaint against respondent judge. In the complaint, Atty. Corral added that he had also filed a motion to order the sheriff to sell personal property or sell or mortgage real property of the estate to allow settlement of Amar's claim, but that motion likewise remained unresolved; he claimed that available property of the estate could satisfy Amar's claim.

In his comment, respondent judge admitted issuing the November 16, 1993 order directing the judicial administrator to pay the judgment award. He explained that the estate had no immediate funds to pay Amar's claim, and that he authorized the judicial administrator to sell or mortgage real property of the estate to pay its creditors, but no third party was willing to transact with the administrator because three groups of heirs claimed ownership of the estate property. He denied any collusion between him and the judicial administrator.

The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator for evaluation, report, and recommendation. The Office of Deputy Court Administrator Zenaida Elepaño required respondent judge to submit a status report on the motion to cite the judicial administrator for contempt and the motion to order the sheriff to sell or mortgage estate property. In a letter dated April 13, 1998, respondent judge explained that the court could not direct the sheriff to sell the property of the estate because this was inconsistent with Section 3, Rule 88, of the Rules of Court; he failed to give an account of the status of the motion for contempt. In a letter dated September 15, 2000, he reported that Special Proceedings No. 28 was still pending hearing due to repeated change of counsel by both parties. He attached a copy of his order dated August 23, 1999, which stated that the court had reached the limit of its patience over the gross disobedience of the judicial administrator to several lawful orders directing him to pay the claim of Constancia Amar, et al. in the amount of P205,125.00; the order set the case for hearing on September 6, 1999 to receive evidence from the judicial administrator why he should not be replaced, and warned that failure to appear would constrain the court to immediately replace him with a person of suitable qualifications and competence.

Upon further inquiry, respondent judge admitted that as of October 3, 2000, he was still unable to resolve the two motions subject of the complaint. In a letter dated December 15, 2000, he informed the Office of the Court Administrator that complainant Amar's claim for wage differentials against the estate had finally been satisfied, and prayed that the administrative complaint be considered moot and academic.

• Failure to Resolve Contempt Motion: Complainant alleged that after respondent judge issued the November 16, 1993 order directing the judicial administrator to settle her claim, she filed a motion for contempt against the administrator on April 27, 1994, but respondent judge failed to resolve it for more than three years.
• Failure to Resolve Sale/Mortgage Motion: Atty. Corral alleged that his motion to order the sheriff to sell personal property or sell or mortgage real property of the estate to satisfy Amar's claim also remained unresolved, despite available estate property that could satisfy the claim.
• Collusion: Complainant suspected possible collusion between respondent judge and the judicial administrator and thus sought the assistance of the Office of the Court Administrator.

• No Immediate Funds and No Willing Buyer: Respondent judge admitted issuing the November 16, 1993 order but explained that the estate had no immediate funds to pay Amar's claim; he authorized the judicial administrator to sell or mortgage real property to pay creditors, but no third party was willing to transact because three groups of heirs claimed ownership of the estate property.
• No Collusion: Respondent denied any collusion between him and the judicial administrator.
• Contempt Motion: Respondent explained that he did not cite the judicial administrator in contempt because the administrator was sickly and he did not want to be the cause of the administrator's death.
• Sale/Mortgage Motion Contrary to Law: Respondent maintained that the court could not direct the sheriff to sell the property of the estate because this was inconsistent with Section 3, Rule 88, of the Rules of Court.
• Mootness: Respondent later informed the Office of the Court Administrator that Amar's claim had been satisfied and prayed that the administrative complaint be considered moot and academic.

• Timely Resolution of Pending Motions: Whether respondent judge is administratively liable for failing to resolve the motion to cite the judicial administrator for contempt and the motion to order the sheriff to sell or mortgage estate property within the 90-day reglementary period.
• Effect of Legally Unmeritorious Motion: Whether a judge may avoid administrative liability for delay by claiming that one of the pending motions was contrary to Section 3, Rule 88, of the Rules of Court.
• Mootness and Penalty: Whether the subsequent satisfaction of complainant's claim renders the administrative complaint moot and affects the appropriate penalty.

• Timely Resolution of Pending Motions: Yes. Failure to resolve pending motions within the 90-day reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency and violates Canon 3, Rule 3.05, of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Effect of Legally Unmeritorious Motion: No. Even if the motion to order the sheriff to sell or mortgage estate property was contrary to Section 3, Rule 88, respondent judge should have promptly denied it instead of leaving it unresolved.
• Mootness and Penalty: No. The subsequent satisfaction of the claim did not moot the administrative complaint; a fine of P2,000.00 was appropriate, lower than usual because respondent appeared to have exerted efforts to settle the claim and the claim was eventually satisfied.

• Timely Resolution of Pending Motions: Canon 3, Rule 3.05 requires a judge to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within prescribed periods. The Court has consistently reminded judges to handle cases with dispatch; procrastination causes injustice and invites suspicion of ulterior motives. If circumstances render a judge incapable of seasonably acting, he should request an extension from the Court and justify it. The motion to cite the judicial administrator for contempt, filed on May 4, 1994, was never resolved. The explanation that the administrator was sickly was no excuse. The motion to require the sheriff to sell or mortgage real properties was also not resolved. Failure to decide within the reglementary period violates the mandate and warrants administrative sanction.
• Effect of Legally Unmeritorious Motion: Respondent judge stated that granting the motion to order the sheriff to sell or mortgage estate property would be contrary to Section 3, Rule 88, of the Revised Rules of Court, which provides that only the executor or administrator may be authorized to dispose of estate properties so that proceeds may be applied to obligations. The OCA agreed that the motion contravened this rule. However, respondent judge still had the duty to resolve the motion within the 90-day reglementary period; he should have simply denied it on the ground that it was contrary to law. Non-compliance with the 90-day period renders him administratively liable.
• Mootness and Penalty: Although respondent judge later reported that Amar's claim had been satisfied, this did not erase the delay. The OCA recommended a fine of P2,000.00, lower than the usual amount, and the Court found this appropriate considering that respondent judge appeared to have exerted efforts to have Amar's claim settled and that the claim was eventually satisfied, albeit late.

• Prompt Disposition of Cases / 90-Day Reglementary Period — Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the periods prescribed by law. Delay in resolving motions within the 90-day period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. In this case, respondent judge failed to resolve the contempt motion for six years and the sale/mortgage motion for five years, warranting administrative sanction.
• Duty to Resolve Even Unmeritorious Motions — A judge cannot leave a motion unresolved simply because it appears legally untenable; he must act on it within the reglementary period and, if he deems it contrary to law, promptly deny it. Applied: the motion to order the sheriff to sell or mortgage estate property contravened Section 3, Rule 88, but respondent judge should have denied it instead of allowing it to remain pending.
• Administrative Liability Not Mooted by Satisfaction of Claim — The subsequent satisfaction of the complainant's claim does not moot an administrative complaint for judicial delay; it may be considered in mitigation of the penalty. Applied: Amar's claim was eventually satisfied, but the Court still imposed a P2,000.00 fine.
• Section 3, Rule 88, Rules of Court — Only the executor or administrator of an estate may be authorized by the court to dispose of estate properties so that the proceeds may be applied to its obligations. Applied: the motion to order the sheriff to sell or mortgage estate property was contrary to this rule, but that did not excuse the judge's failure to resolve it promptly.

• "Canon 3, Rule 3.05, of the Code of Judicial Conduct requires that a judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the periods prescribed therefor." — States the controlling rule violated by respondent judge.
• "The motion to cite the judicial administrator for contempt, filed on 4 May 1994, was never resolved by respondent judge. The explanation that he could not grant the motion because the judicial administrator was sickly certainly is no excuse." — Establishes that the judge's excuse for non-resolution was unacceptable.
• "If respondent judge indeed felt so, then he should have forthwith issued an order denying the motion instead of allowing the motion to remain unresolved." — Articulates the duty to promptly deny a motion deemed contrary to law rather than leave it pending.
• "Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period constitutes a violation of this mandate warranting the imposition of administrative sanction on the defaulting judge." — States the basis for administrative liability.

• Bonifacio I. Buintu vs. Judge Aunario L. Lucero, 261 SCRA 1 — Cited by the OCA for the rule that delay in resolving motions within the 90-day reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, as well as a violation of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.
• Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in Municipal Trial Court, Sibulan, Negros Oriental, 282 SCRA 463 — Cited by the Court for the principle that failure to decide a case within the reglementary period warrants administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.

• Canon 3, Rule 3.05, Code of Judicial Conduct — Requires a judge to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the prescribed periods. Applied: respondent judge violated this rule by failing to resolve the two motions within the 90-day reglementary period.
• Section 3, Rule 88, Revised Rules of Court — Provides that only the executor or administrator of an estate may be authorized to dispose of estate properties so that the proceeds may be applied to its obligations. Applied: the motion to order the sheriff to sell or mortgage estate property was contrary to this provision, but respondent judge still had the duty to resolve or deny it promptly.
• Constitution and law — 90-day reglementary period — The OCA invoked the 90-day period fixed by the Constitution and law for resolving motions and incidents, stating that delay within that period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. Applied: respondent judge failed to resolve the two motions within the period.

Davide, Jr., C.J., Melo, Puno, Kapunan, Mendoza, Panganiban, Pardo, Buena, Gonzaga-Reyes, Ynares-Santiago, De Leon, Jr., and Sandoval-Gutierrez, JJ., concur. Bellosillo, J., took no part. Quisumbing, J., is on leave.