CORPORATE MANAGERS AND CONSULTANTS, INC., complainant, vs. JUDGE MANUEL B. ACOSTA, Municipal Judge of Makati, Metro Manila, Branch IV, respondent.
A.M. No. 2680-MJ. March 30, 1982.
Respondent Judge was charged administratively for having acted on complainant's Motion to Compel Plaintiff to Return Unused Rental to the Defendant in an action for ejectment only after the lapse of more than eight (8) months from the submission thereof for resolution, which is far beyond the reglementary period of ninety (90) days required by law for resolving motions. In his answer, respondent averred that it was "premature to act favorably" on complainant's Motion inasmuch as evidence had not yet been introduced, and the parties to the ejectment case were in the process of negotiating an amicable settlement.
Issue:
Whether or not the respondent judge violated the prescribed period for resolving motions.
Held:
Yes. The Supreme Court ruled that the respondent judge clearly violated the prescribed 90-day period for resolving motions. It appearing that respondent Judge has not committed the same dereliction before, he is admonished and warned that a repetition of such infraction will be severely dealt with. Where the respondent Judge resolved a Motion after a lapse of more than eight (8) months from the submission thereof for resolution, it is clear that said Judge committed an infraction of the reglementary period of ninety (90) days required by law for resolving motions. He should be admonished and warned that a repetition of such infraction will be severely dealt with.