LEGAL ETHICS
JUDICIAL ETHICS
JUDGES MUST DECIDE CASES PROMPTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY
The Court has, time and again, reminded judges to decide cases promptly and expeditiously
under the time-honored principle that justice delayed is justice denied. More specifically, presiding
judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before
their courts. To repeat, trial court judges, who serve as the frontline officials of the judiciary, are
expected to act at all times with efficiency and probity. (Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda vs
Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, A.M. No. RTJ-16-2460, June 27, 2018)
JUDGES MUST DECIDE CASES PROMPTLY AND EXPEDITIOUSLY
Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda vs Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller
A.M. No. RTJ-16-2460; June 27, 2018
Carpio, J
FACTS
This is an administrative complainant filed by complainant Atty. Jerome Norman L.
Tacorda against respondent Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller for gross ignorance of the law, gross
inefficiency, delay in the administration of justice.
This complaint stemmed from a civil case entitled Salvilla vs Spouses Dumdum initially
pending before Judge Felicen. Judge Felicen issued an Order requiring the parties to submit their
respective pre-trial briefs and setting the pre-trial. However, Judge Felicen inhibited himself from
the case and the case was raffled to the sala of Judge Cabrera-Faller. As the last event in the
court of origin was for pre-trial, the case was set for pre-trial. However, it was found out that the
case had already been referred for mediation, prompting the trial court to suspend the
proceedings. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs in the civil case belatedly filed their Pre-Trial Brief, which
prompted Spouses Dumdum, through complainant, to file a Motion to Expunge the Pre-Trial Brief.
Almost two years after the Motion was filed, respondent denied the motion and set the case for
pre-trial conference. The pre-trial conference was rescheduled due to the hospitalization of
respondent.
The delay attendant in resolving the motion prompted complainant to file the present case
against respondent. In her Comment of respondent, she argued that there was no gross
inefficiency since the resetting of the hearings was part of the continuing court events and
incidents.
ISSUE: Was there an undue delay in the disposition of the case?
RULING
Yes, there is merit in the complaint for gross inefficiency and delay in the administration
of justice against respondent when she failed to promptly act on the motion filed by Spouses
Dumdum. Delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice, which brings the court
into disrepute, and ultimately erodes public faith and confidence in the Judiciary. Judges are
therefore called upon to exercise the utmost diligence and dedication in the performance of their
duties. More particularly, trial judges are expected to act with dispatch and dispose of the court's
business promptly and to decide cases within the required periods. The main objective of every
judge, particularly trial judges, should be to avoid delays, or if it cannot be totally avoided, to hold
them to the minimum and to repudiate manifestly dilatory tactics.
The Constitution clearly provides that all lower courts should decide or resolve cases or
matters within three months from the date of submission. The Court has, time and again, reminded
judges to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored principle that justice
delayed is justice denied. More specifically, presiding judges must endeavor to act promptly on all
motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts.
In this case, Judge Cabrera-Faller failed to meet the expectation of promptness and
efficiency that is required of a trial court judge. She failed to act on the Motion to Expunged the
Pre-Trial Brief for almost two years, which is a clear delay in the administration of justice. Failure
to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency
which warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions. Judge Cabrera-Faller failed to offer any
satisfactory reason to explain the reason for this delay.
Hence, respondent is guilty of gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice.
