The Supreme Court of the Philippines has imposed a penalty on a judge for delaying a decision on a legal request for seven years. The case involved a writ of preliminary injunction filed against a construction company accused of forcibly evicting market stallholders in Cainta, Rizal.
In an 11-page decision made public on Tuesday, the Supreme Court found Judge Miguel Asuncion of Antipolo City’s Regional Trial Court Branch 99 guilty of gross neglect of duty. The court ordered him to pay a fine of PHP 200,000.
The legal request was submitted by Rolly Castillo and other stallholders from New Cubao Central Market in Rizal. They filed a damages complaint against Engineer Alfred Figueras of Princeville Construction and Development Corp. They alleged that the company forcibly evicted them to seize control of the market.
The request for a writ of preliminary injunction, meant to prevent immediate harm, was filed on April 1, 2016. The plaintiffs claimed that the prolonged delay in resolving the request threatened their livelihoods. Despite several motions to prompt a decision, the judge did not resolve the matter for seven years.
The Supreme Court examined the record and found that the plaintiffs’ motions did not contribute to the delay. Instead, they wanted to expedite the resolution. In contrast, Judge Asuncion argued that the numerous motions from the plaintiffs added to the delay. He also cited his responsibilities, including handling search warrants and bail applications, as well as his position as an executive judge, as factors causing the delay.
Despite these claims, the Supreme Court ruled that the delay was inexcusable. The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) recommended finding Asuncion guilty of gross neglect of duty. It noted that the request was pending for an extended period without resolution. Voting unanimously, the Supreme Court agreed with the JIB’s findings. The court emphasized that a request for a writ of preliminary injunction should be addressed urgently. Judge Asuncion’s delay was not acceptable.
In his defense, Judge Asuncion claimed that the COVID-19 pandemic and his other duties contributed to the delay. But the Supreme Court rejected this argument. The court noted that the issues with the case began before the pandemic. It stated that the pandemic cannot justify wrongful acts or omissions from that time.