FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. OCA IPI No. 04-1606-MTJ. September 19, 2012.]

ATTY. ARTURO JUANITO T. MATURAN , complainant, vs . JUDGE

LIZABETH GUTIERREZ-TORRES , respondent.

DECISION

BERSAMIN , J : p

A judge must exert every effort to timely rule upon a case submitted for decision. If
she thinks that she would need a period to decide a case or to resolve an issue longer than
what the Constitution prescribes, she may request an extension from the Court to avoid
administrative sanctions.
Antecedents
On August 12, 2004, complainant Atty. Arturo Juanito T. Maturan (Maturan), the
counsel for the private complainant in Criminal Case No. 67659 entitled People v. Anicia C.
Ventanilla, led a sworn complaint 1 against Judge Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres, the former
Presiding Judge of Branch 60 of the Metropolitan Trial Court in Mandaluyong City,
charging her with unjusti ably delaying the rendition of the decision in his client's criminal
case. Atty. Maturan averred that the criminal case had remained pending and unresolved
despite its having been submitted for decision since June 2002 yet, pertinently alleging in
detail as follows:
Court Record show that —

1. 10 April 2002 — This is the date of the last hearing during which the
defense counsel, Atty. Williard S. Wong, manifested in open court that he
has no more documentary exhibit to offer and accordingly rested his case.
The Honorable Court then ordered the parties to le their respective
memorandum after which, the case was ordered submitted for decision.

2. 03 June 2002 — The prosecution led its MEMORANDUM. ( Copy attached

a s ANNEX "A" ) The defense waived ling any MEMORANDUM as court
records show that up to this day, the defense counsel, Atty. Wong, did not
file any.
3. 09 December 2002 — The prosecution led a MOTION TO DECIDE case
dated 09 December 2002. (Copy attached as ANNEX "B") The Honorable
Presiding Judge simply sat on said motion and did not take any action
thereto.
4. 10 July 2003 — The prosecution led a SECOND MOTION TO DECIDE
CASE dated 10 July 2003 (Copy attached as ANNEX "C"). The Honorable
Presiding Judge denied it for the alleged failure to comply with the ORDER
dated 03 May 2001. Said ORDER involves sur-rebuttal evidence, however,
this has been rendered moot by the proceedings held on 10 April 2002.
Court records would show that as mentioned above, Atty. Wong
manifested in open court that the defense is already resting its case. In
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 fact, the Honorable Court thereafter ordered the parties to le their
respective memorandum and ordered the case submitted for decision
thereafter.
EIAScH

5. 04 February 2004 — The prosecution led a THIRD MOTION TO DECIDE

CASE dated 04 February 2004 (Copy attached as ANNEX "D").

6. 11 August 2004 — In the morning of 11 August 2004, undersigned

thoroughly reviewed the court records and discovered that the Hon.
Presiding Judge has not taken any action to the motion. Records also
show that the Hon. Presiding Judge has not yet made a decision on the
case despite the lapse of more than 2 years. When undersigned came back
to again examine the records in the afternoon of 11 August 2004, he was
surprised to be shown with a newly-signed ORDER also dated 11 August
2004 stating completion of the transcript of records and considered the
case is now supposedly "submitted for decision". 2

Atty. Maturan stated that Judge Gutierrez-Torres' failure to render the judgment
within the 90-day period from submission of the case for decision violated Canon 3, Rule
3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct and the Constitution, and constituted gross
inefficiency. 3
On August 27, 2004, the O ce of the Court Administrator (OCA) directed Judge
Gutierrez-Torres through its rst indorsement of the complaint to submit her comment,
and also to show cause why no disciplinary action should be taken against her for her
violation of her professional responsibility as a lawyer pursuant to the Resolution dated
September 17, 2002 issued in A.M. No. 02-9-02-SC. 4
On September 24, 2004, Judge Gutierrez-Torres implored the OCA to grant her a 20-
day extension of the period within which to submit her comment. Despite her request
being granted, she failed to submit a comment, causing the Court to issue on June 29,
2005 its Resolution "to REQUIRE the respondent to (a) SHOW CAUSE why she should not
be administratively dealt with for refusing to submit her comment despite the two
directives from the O ce of the Court Administrator; and (b) SUBMIT the required
COMMENT, both within ve (5) days from receipt hereof, failing which the Court shall take
the necessary action against her and decide the administrative complaint on the basis of
the record on hand." 5
The records show that Judge Gutierrez-Torres sought four more extensions of the
period within which to submit a comment; and that the Court granted her further requests
through its Resolutions dated September 12, 2005, 6 October 19, 2005, 7 February 8, 2006,
8 and March 21, 2007. 9 The Court likewise granted her request to photocopy documents
relevant to the complaint. 1 0 Notwithstanding the liberality of the Court in granting several
extensions, she still did not submit a comment.
In its Memorandum dated August 25, 2011, 1 1 the OCA rendered the following
findings, to wit:
The respondent has consistently exhibited indifference to the Court's
Resolutions requiring her to comment on the instant complaint. Her behavior
constitutes gross misconduct and blatant insubordination, even outright
disrespect for the Court. It must be borne in mind that a resolution of the Court
requiring comment on an administrative complaint is not a mere request, nor
should it be complied with partially, inadequately or selectively. Failure by the
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 respondent to comply betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also
disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive.
Moreover, she has no defense whatsoever to refute the charges against
her. The records are replete with documentary evidence that in Criminal Case No.
67659, entitled "People of the Philippines vs. Anicia C. Ventenilla," she miserably
failed to decide the said case within the reglementary period of 90 days. In fact,
three (3) successive Motions to Decide Case dated 9 December 2002, 10 July
2003 and 4 February 2004, were led by the prosecution without any action on
the part of the respondent. By the time the instant administrative complaint was
led on 12 August 2004, more than two (2) years had already elapsed since the
said criminal case was submitted for decision. Clearly, the respondent is not only
guilty of insubordina tion a n d gross ine ciency, but also of g r a v e and
serious misconduct, having violated Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial
Conduct and Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution.

Considering the gravity of the above-mentioned offenses committed by the

respondent, the penalty of dismissal from the service is commensurate, imposing
the penalty of dismissal from the service on the respondent will be in consonance
with the ruling of the Court in the consolidated cases of Alice Davila vs. Judge
Joselito S.D. Generoso and Leticia S. Santos vs. Judge Joselito S.D. Generoso, to
wit:

"The failure of the respondent judge to comply with the

show-cause resolutions aforecited constitutes 'grave and serious
m i sco n d u ct affecting his tness and worthiness of the honor and
integrity attached to his o ce. It is noteworthy that respondent judge was
afforded several opportunities to explain his failure to decide the subject
cases long pending before his court and to comply with the directives of
the Court, but he has failed, and continues to fail, to heed the orders of the
Court; a glaring proof that he has become disinterested in his position in
the judicial system to which he belongs.

It is beyond cavil that the inability of respondent judge to

decide the cases in question within the reglementary period of
ninety (90) days from their date of submission, constitutes gross
ine ciency and is violative of Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of
Judicial Conduct, which provides that '[a] judge shall dispose of the
court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.'
The separation of the respondent judge from the service is
indeed warranted, if only to see to it that the people's trust in the
judiciary be maintained and speedy administration of justice be assured."
TEacSA

It bears mentioning that the instant case is not an isolated one. Several
administrative cases against the respondent are still pending before the Court, all
of which invariably charge her with gross misconduct and inexcusable
ine ciency, among others, for failing to decide cases or resolve pending
incidents for inordinately long periods of time. In similar lackadaisical fashion,
the respondent has ignored the orders of the Court directing her to comment on
said complaints. She has likewise been previously penalized with nes and
suspensions. However, the respondent Judge has not shown any sign of remorse
or contrition, even as the administrative complaints against her piled up. And
worse, in her sala, hundreds of criminal and civil cases submitted for decision
and/or resolution remained untouched and unresolved, gathering dust as they
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 aged.
Finally, on 23 November 2010, in three (3) consolidated cases against the
respondent, docketed as A.M. No. MTJ-08-1719, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1722, and A.M.
No. MTJ-08-1723, the Court, in a Per Curiam Decision, nally DISMISSED the
respondent from the service with forfeiture of all retirement bene ts except
earned leave and vacation benefits, with benefits, with prejudice to employment in
any branch of the government or any of its instrumentalities including
government-owned and controlled corporations. The court ruled therein that:
"The magnitude of her transgressions in the present consolidated
cases — gross ine ciency, gross ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty,
violation of the Code of Judicial Conduct, and insubordination, taken
collectively, cast a heavy shadow on her moral, intellectual and attitudinal
competence. She has shown herself unworthy of the judicial robe and
place of honor reserved for guardians of justice. Thus, the Court is
constrained to impose upon her the severest of administrative penalties —
dismissal from the service, to assure the people's faith in the judiciary and
the speedy administration of justice."
Even though the respondent has been dismissed from the service, this
does not necessarily mean that she cannot be held administratively liable in the
instant case. In its fairly recent Decision in Narag vs. Manio, the Court ruled that:

"Unfortunately for the respondent, this did not render her case moot.
She must not be allowed to evade administrative liability by her
previous dismissal from the service. Thus, for this case involving
additional serious offenses, the Court nds it proper to impose upon her a
ne of P20,000 to be deducted from her accrued leave credits in lieu of
dismissal from the service."

Upon the foregoing ndings, the OCA recommended that Judge Gutierrez-Torres be
administratively sanctioned as follows:
xxx xxx xxx

2. Respondent Lizabeth Gutierrez-Torres be found G U I L T Y of

INSUBORDINATION, GROSS INEFFICIENCY, a n d G R A V E and
SERIOUS MISCONDUCT ;
3. In view of her previous dismissal from the service, a FINE of P20,000.00
instead be imposed upon her, to be deducted from her accrued leave
credits;
xxx xxx xxx

Ruling
We adopt the findings and uphold the recommendations of the OCA.
Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the 1987 Constitution requires that all cases or matters
led after the effectivity of the Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-
four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all
other lower courts. Thereby, the Constitution mandates all justices and judges to be
efficient and speedy in the disposition of the cases or matters pending in their courts.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 Reiterating the mandate, the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine
Judiciary requires judges to "devote their professional activity to judicial duties, which
include . . . the performance of judicial functions and responsibilities in court and the
making of decisions . . .," 1 2 and to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of
reserved decisions, e ciently, fairly and with reasonable promptness." 1 3 Likewise, Rule
3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct imposes on all judges the duty to dispose of
their courts' business promptly and to decide cases within the required periods.
These judicial canons directly demand e ciency from the judges in obvious
recognition of the right of the public to the speedy disposition of their cases. In such
context, the saying justice delayed is justice denied becomes a true encapsulation of the
felt need for efficiency and promptness among judges.
To x the time when a case pending before a court is to be considered as submitted
for decision, the Court has issued Administrative Circular No. 28 dated July 3, 1989, whose
third paragraph provides:
A case is considered submitted for decision upon the admission of the
evidence of the parties at the termination of the trial. The ninety (90) day
period for deciding the case shall commence to run from submission of
the case for decision without memoranda; in case the court requires or
allows its ling, the case shall be considered submitted for decision
upon the ling of the last memorandum or upon the expiration of the
period to do so, whichever is earlier. Lack of transcript of stenographic notes shall
not be a valid reason to interrupt or suspend the period for deciding the case
unless the case was previously heard by another judge not the deciding judge in
which case the latter shall have the full period of ninety (90) days for the
completion of the transcripts within which to decide the same.

The time when a case or other matter is deemed submitted for decision or
resolution by a judge is, therefore, settled and well de ned. There is no longer any excuse
for not complying with the canons mandating e ciency and promptness in the resolution
of cases and other matters pending in the courts. Hence, all judges should be mindful of
the duty to decide promptly, knowing that the public's faith and con dence in the Judiciary
are no less at stake if they should ignore such duty. They must always be aware that upon
each time a delay occurs in the disposition of cases, their stature as judicial o cers and
the respect for their position diminish. The reputation of the entire Judiciary, of which they
are among the pillars, is also thereby undeservedly tarnished. DacTEH

A judge like Judge Gutierrez-Torres should be imbued with a high sense of duty and
responsibility in the discharge of the obligation to promptly administer justice. She must
cultivate a capacity for promptly rendering her decisions. Should she anticipate that she
would need a period longer than what the Constitution and the issuances of the Court
prescribe within which to render her decision or resolution, she should request a proper
extension of the period from the Court, through the OCA, and lay out in the request the
justi cation for her inability. Yet, she did not at all do so in Criminal Case No. 67659
entitled People v. Anicia C. Ventanilla. She was clearly guilty of gross ine ciency,
especially because her inability to decide the case within the required period became
absolutely devoid of excuse after she did not bother to proffer any explanation for her
inability.
The gross ine ciency of Judge Gutierrez-Torres warranted the imposition of
administrative sanction against her. 1 4 Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M.
CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com
 No. 01-8-10-SC, classi es undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious
charge punishable by either: (a) suspension from o ce without salary and other bene ts
for not less than one nor more than three months; or (b ) a ne of more than P10,000.00
but not exceeding P20,000.00. We adopt the OCA's recommendation as to the ne in the
maximum of P20,000.00, considering that she had already been dismissed from the
service due to a similar offense of unjustified delay in rendering decisions. 1 5
As a nal word, the Court must focus attention to the indifference of Judge
Gutierrez-Torres towards the Court's directive for her to le her comment despite the
repeated extensions of the period to do so liberally extended by the Court at her request.
Such indifference re ected not only that she had no credible explanation for her omission,
but also that she did not care to comply with the directives of the Court. The latter
represents an attitude that no judge should harbor towards the Highest Tribunal of the
country, and for that reason is worse than the former. She should not be emulated by any
other judge, for that attitude re ected her lack of personal character and ethical merit. To
be sure, the Court does not brook her insubordination, and would do more to her had she
not been removed from the Judiciary. Accordingly, the Court must still hold her to account
for her actuations as a member of the Law Profession, which is what remains to be done
after first giving her the opportunity to show cause why she should not.
WHEREFORE, the Court nds former Metropolitan Trial Court JUDGE LIZABETH
G UTI E RRE Z- TO RRE S guilty of gross ine ciency, and imposes on her a ne of
P20,000.00, to be deducted from her accrued leave credits, if any.
The Court orders JUDGE GUTIERREZ-TORRES to show cause in writing within ten
days from notice why she should not be suspended from membership in the Integrated
Bar of the Philippines for her act of insubordination towards the Court.
The Court directs the Employees Leave Division, O ce of Administrative Services-
OCA to compute the balance of Judge Gutierrez-Torres' earned leave credits and forward
the same to the Finance Division, Fiscal Management O ce-OCA which shall compute its
monetary value.
SO ORDERED. IEHaSc

Sereno, C.J., Leonardo-de Castro, Brion * and Reyes, JJ., concur.

Footnotes
*Vice Justice Martin S. Villarama, Jr., who is on leave per Special Order No. 1305.
1.Rollo, pp. 1-4.
2.Id. at 1-2.

3.Id. at 2.
4.Id. at 20.
5.Id. at 24.
6.Id. at 31.

7.Id. at 39.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com

 8.Id. at 44.

9.Id. at 48.
10.Id. at 51.
11.Id. at 57-60.
12.Section 2, Canon 6.
13.Section 5, Canon 6.

14.Mina v. Mupas, A.M. No. RTJ-07-2067, June 18, 2008, 555 SCRA 44, 50.
15.Lugares v. Gutierrez-Torres, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1719, November 23, 2010, 635 SCRA 716.

CD Technologies Asia, Inc. 2018 cdasiaonline.com