Case Digest: ISIP, JR. v. JUDGE NOGOY

FIDEL ISIP, JR. v. JUDGE VALENTINO B. NOGOY

399 SCRA 490 (2003)

Any delay in the determination or resolution of a case, no matter how insignificant the case may seem to a judge, is, at bottom, delay in the administration of justice in general.

Fidel Isip Jr. filed a petition before the Commission on Election (COMELEC) for the confirmation of his election as Vice Mayor of Macabebe, Pampanga against his rival Pedro Yabut Jr. who also claimed to have won the said position. The COMELEC En Banc ordered the convention of a new Municipal Board of Canvassers for the Municipality of Macabebe, which was later suspended. While the case before the COMELEC is pending, Yabut filed a petition against Isip charging him with Usurpation of Authority before the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Macabebe with herein respondent Judge Valentino B. Nogoy as the presiding judge. Judge Nogoy found probable cause for Usurpation of Authority and ordered the arrest of Isip.

In the meantime, the COMELEC en banc lifted the suspension of the convention of the Municipal Board of Canvassers. Thereafter, Isip filed before the MCTC a Motion to Dismiss the complaint against him. Later the Board of Canvassers proclaimed Isip as the duly elected Vice Mayor which prompted Isip to file a Second Motion to Dismiss, however Nogoy failed to resolve such motion. Hence, Isip filed a complaint charging Nogoy with gross ignorance of the law, gross misconduct and gross inefficiency.

The Investigating judge appointed by the court found no probable cause for gross ignorance of law and gross misconduct, but found Nogoy liable for gross inefficiency.

ISSUE:

Whether or not Judge Nogoy is guilty of gross inefficiency

HELD:

It is gathered that after Isip filed at the MCTC a Sur-Rejoinder on March 24, 2000, his Motion to Dismiss was submitted for resolution. Nogoy thus had 90 days or up to June 24, 2000 within which to resolve the motion.

During the October 28, 2002 hearing conducted by the Investigating Judge, Nogoy claimed that he resolved the motion on September 7, 2000. There was no order of such date proffered by him, however.
But even if Nogoy had resolved the motion on September 7, 2000, he still incurred in delay.

That Nogoy was burdened with a heavy case load in MCTC Apalit-San Simon and MCTC Macabebe-Masantol is not a valid excuse, especially given the fact that while he was the Presiding Judge of the MCTC of Macabebe-Masantol since 1998, it was only on January 5, 2001, after the present complaint was filed, that he was designated Presiding Judge of the MCTC of Apalit-San Simon.

When circumstances arise which prevent a judge from deciding a case or an incident thereof within the reglementary period, all he has to do is to file an application with this Court for a reasonable extension of time within which to decide or resolve the same. The record is bereft, however, of any showing that Nogoy made any such request. Instead, he preferred to keep the resolution of the motion pending, the filing of two motions for the purpose notwithstanding.

The Court has always emphasized ―the need and the imperative‖ for judges to promptly and expeditiously decide cases including all incidents therein. Failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency which warrants administrative sanctions. For any delay in the determination or resolution of a case, no matter how insignificant the case may seem to a judge, is, at bottom, delay in the administration of justice in general. The suffering endured by just one person – whether plaintiff, defendant, or accused – while awaiting a judgment that may affect his life, honor, liberty, or property, taints the entire judiciary’s performance in its solemn task of administering justice.