AM No. RTJ-12-2331; December 10, 2012; Leonardo de-Castro, J.
SUMMARY: Magdadaros (complainant) car was involved in a car accident and consequently, he had to buy a radiator from Bathala Marketing Industries, Inc. However, just 20-30 minutes after his radiator was replaced, the cars engine started to overheat again. This time, complainant brought his car to Global Motors Cebu Distributors Corp. (Global Motors) and had the radiator tank installed by BMII removed in the presence of a BMMI representative. Global Motors issued a certification stating that the replacement radiator tank that BMII installed in complainants car was not brand new but a reconditioned old radiator tank. He then instituted a case against BMMI for breach of contract. Respondent rendered a Decision on December 28, 2009 dismissing the complaint in Civil Case No. CEB27778 for lack of cause of action against the BMMI. Complainant filed a Notice to Appeal which was only acted upon 6 months after filing. Frustrated with how the RTC was handling his case, complainant filed the present administrative complaint against respondent on October 17, 2011, alleging unreasonable delay by the respondent. Complainant also asserted that respondent was ignorant of the law considering that the latter did not know the respective liabilities and obligations of the parties in a comprehensive car insurance contract. Complainant further claimed that respondent was partial or biased in favor of BMII. Respondent, on the other hand, argued that the filing of the instant complaint was premature and his office was undermanned, hence, the delay. Issue: WON the respondent should be held liable for the delay YES (see doctrine 2) DOCTRINE: 1. An administrative complaint against a judge cannot be pursued simultaneously with the judicial remedies accorded to parties aggrieved by his erroneous order or judgment. Administrative remedies are neither alternative nor cumulative to judicial review where such review is available to aggrieved parties and the same has not yet been resolved with finality. 2. Section 15(1), Article VIII of the Constitution, mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution. As a general principle, rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done, or certain proceedings taken, are considered absolutely indispensable to the prevention of needless delays and the orderly and speedy discharge of judicial business. By their very nature, these rules are regarded as mandatory.