ARTICLE-207-MALICIOUS-DELAY

1. ARTICLE 207
MALICIOUS DELAY IN THE
ADMINISTRATION OF JUSTICE
ARTICLE 207
The penalty of prision correccional in its minimum period shall be
imposed upon any judge guilty of malicious delay in the administration
of justice.

2. ELEMENTS:
1. Offender is a judge;
2. There is a proceeding in his court;
3. He delays the administration of justice; and
4. The delay is malicious, that is, the delay is
caused by the judge with deliberate intent to
inflict damage on either party in the case.

3. Mere delay without malice is not a
felony under this article.
Mere delay without malice in holding trials
or rendering judgments does not necessarily
bring the judge within the operation of this
law.

4. ARTICLE 172
 If the delay is not malicious, but committed through gross
negligence, the crime committed is that under RA 3019,
Sec. 3(e).
RA 3019 ‘’Anti-Graft & Corrupt Practices Act’’
Section 3 (e):
 Causing any undue injury to any party, including the
Government, or giving any private party any unwarranted
benefits, advantage or preference in the discharge of his
official administrative or judicial functions through manifest
partiality, evident bad faith or gross inexcusable negligence.

5. Yu vs. Consolacion-Serrano
A municipal judge in the Philippines is dismissed
from service for malicious and gross delay in the
administration of justice, including deliberate
delays, false certifications, conflicting reports, and
the loss of important case records.

6. Facts:
Respondent Municipal Judge Jose Consolacion-Serrano was charged with malicious
and gross delay in the administration of justice on two counts.
The first count involved the deliberate and malicious delay in the disposition of a
Qualified Theft case filed by complainant Demetrio Yu, as well as a case for Serious
Oral Defamation brought against Yu.
The second count involved the issuance of a false certification by the respondent
judge, stating that Yu still had a pending criminal case against him when in fact, the
case had already been decided and awaiting promulgation.
It was also found that the respondent judge signed and submitted conflicting
monthly reports of pending cases.
The original copy of the decision and the records of the Defamation case against Yu
got lost while in the custody of the respondent judge.
The respondent judge had previously been warned in two previous administrative
cases.

7. Issue:
1. Whether the respondent judge is guilty of malicious and gross delay
in the administration of justice.
2. Whether the respondent judge knowingly and deliberately issued a
false certification.
3. Whether the respondent judge signed and submitted conflicting
monthly reports of pending cases.
4. Whether the loss of the original copy of the decision and the records
of the Defamation case against Yu is the responsibility of the
respondent judge.

8. Ruling:
1. The Supreme Court found the respondent judge guilty of malicious
and gross delay in the administration of justice, prejudicial to the
public interest.
2. As a result, the respondent judge was dismissed from the service,
with forfeiture of all retirement benefits and pay, and with prejudice
to reinstatement in any branch of the government or any of its
agencies or instrumentalities.

9. Ratio:
Despite previous warnings and admonitions given to the respondent
judge in two previous administrative cases, he was found to be remiss in
the performance of his duties.
The deliberate and malicious delay in the disposition of the cases, the
issuance of a false certification, the submission of conflicting monthly
reports, and the loss of the original copy of the decision and the records
of the Defamation case all demonstrated the respondent judge's lack of
integrity, responsibility, and efficiency.
Therefore, the Court concluded that the respondent judge should be
dismissed from the service.

10. THANK YOU