THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-00-1273. June 1,
2000]
JANUARIO
LOTINO, GEORGE MARINAS, GAUDENCIO MISOLAS, MARIANO MORATILLO, SR., FRUCTOSO M.
MANCION, SEMEON MILITANTE, SR., JUANITO LOSIGRO, ARISTON BANIA, HEGINO MANCION,
SR., AGAPITO MILOR, JR., DOMINGO MARINAS, BIENVENIDO ABRERA, ROSALEA SOLER
MISOLAS, MAXIMO A. CASTUERA, complainants, vs. JUDGE FROILAN N.
HERNANDEZ, Municipal Trial Court, Pilar, Sorsogon, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG, J.: batas
In a letter-complaint, dated 07 May 1996,
filed by Januario Lotino, et al., against Judge Froilan N. Hernandez of the
Municipal Trial Court of Pilar, Sorsogon, complainants charged respondent Judge
with dereliction of duty relative to his inaction on Civil Case No. 409-422 for
"Forcible Entry." Complainants averred, further, that they had since
filed a motion for the transfer of the venue of trial to Sorsogon, Sorsogon,
but that, too, remained unacted upon by respondent Judge.
Respondent Judge, in his comment, denied the
validity of the charge against him and countered that he was handling two
courts – the Municipal Trial Court in Pilar wherein he regularly presided and
the Municipal Trial Court of Donsol, about 120 kilometers away, where he was
also designated as an Acting Judge - a double task he had to contend with.
Respondent Judge claimed, with particular reference to the motion for the
transfer of venue, that the delay in its disposition was due to the wrong
filing thereof in his sala instead of its being properly submitted
before the Executive Judge.
In its resolution of 23 September 1996, the
Court referred the case to the Office of the Court Administrator
("OCA") for evaluation, report and recommendation. In a memorandum,
dated 06 February 1997, the OCA found respondent Judge guilty and recommended
that he be meted a fine of P1,000.00, with a warning that "a repetition of
the same or similar conduct in the future will be dealt with more
severely." In a resolution, dated 16 June 1997, the Court directed
respondent Judge to inform the Court of the status of the forcible entry case
and required the parties to manifest whether they would be willing to submit
the case for resolution on the basis of what theretofore appeared to be on
record.
CODES
Hegino M. Mancion, Sr., one of the complainants,
in his letter of 21 July 1997, said that Judge Hernandez was already replaced
by Judge Beatriz Bo.
In a memorandum addressed through the Chief
Justice, Judge Hernandez reported that the cases were yet pending and still
awaiting an "Answer" from the defendants, and that it was his Clerk
of Court, Mrs. Aditha Lim, who could inform the Court of the status of the
cases, he being already on leave preparatory to his retirement. He manifested,
in his letter of 09 October 1997, his willingness to submit the case for
resolution on the basis of the pleadings already on file.
In a memorandum, dated 27 March 1998, the
OCA, through Senior Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo L. Suarez, reiterated
its findings in its 06th February 1997 report, but this time recommended a
higher fine of P5,000.00. Finding respondent Judge guilty of dereliction of
duty and gross ignorance of the rules, the OCA declared:
"The complaint has merit. We find the
explanation of the respondent unsatisfactory. In effect the reason for the
delay as impressed by the respondent is the erroneous filing of the
complainants' counsel of the motion for transfer of venue of trial of the civil
cases with the respondent's sala. This is of no moment. Whether the motion
should be filed with the Executive Judge as claimed by him it is still
incumbent for him to take action on the motion and promptly dispose of it. He
offered no explanation in his Answer as to what happened to the motion leading
us to believe complainant's claim that truly, the same has not been acted upon
by the respondent. A judge should be the embodiment of competency, integrity
and independence (Canon 1, Rule 1.01, Code of Judicial Conduct) and should
administer justice, impartially and without delay (Canon 1, Rule 1.02). All
Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory
matters pending before their courts (Paragraph 6.1, Administrative Circular No.
1, January 28, 1988).
"As to the allegation of the
complainants that probably the reason for the delay is that one of the herein
complainants Hegino Mancion, Sr. is a witness to the criminal complaint filed
by Erwin Lladoc against herein respondent Judge, the same is speculative and
has no basis at all."[1]
"x x x In addition to this, we find
respondent Judge grossly ignorant of the Rules on Summary Procedure which
governs Forcible Entry cases, particularly Secs. 5 and 6 thereof. Section 5
provides that within ten (10) days from service of summons, the defendant shall
file his answer to the complaint and serve a copy thereof on the plaintiff.
Under Section 6 of the same Rule, should the defendant fail to answer the
complaint within the period above provided, the court motu propio or on motion
of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as maybe warranted by the facts alleged
in the complaint and limited to what is prayed for therein. katarungan
"It is evident that respondent Judge
failed to apply these very basic rules as it appears from his manifestation
that said civil cases has not been acted upon by him because he is still
waiting for the defendants to file their pleadings or answers. It is very clear
that respondent Judge seemingly lacks awareness of the provisions in forcible
entry cases. Under the said Section 6, he should proceed to render judgment
based on the allegations of the complaint and the evidence presented if after
the lapse of ten (10) days from service of summons, the defendant failed to
file his answer on the complaint. The provision is very explicit and
elementary, so elementary that not to know this reflects some degree of
incompetence on the part of the respondent Judge. Moreover, under Section 10 of
the rule, respondent Judge is duty bound to render his decision within thirty
(30) days from receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration
of the period for filing the same. Considering the summary nature of Forcible
Entry cases, respondent judge in effect contributed to the delay in the speedy
disposition of the cases. The reason being because were it not for his
ignorance of the rules these cases could have been disposed of at once.
"The Rule on Summary Procedure was
precisely enacted to achieve an expeditious and inexpensive determination of
cases and failure to observe the 30-day period within which to render a
judgment subjects the defaulting judge to administrative sanction (Cruz vs.
Pascual, 244 SCRA 111 [1995])."[2]
In the resolution of 28 February 2000, the
case was ordered docketed as a regular administrative matter, and the
manifestation of complainants, required in the resolution of 16 June 1997, was
dispensed with.
The Court sustains the findings and
recommendation of the OCA, although, considering the explanation of respondent
Judge, the Court deems it appropriate to reduce the suggested fine of
P5,000.00.
Rule 3.05, Canon 3, of the Canons on
Judicial Ethics mandates that a judge should dispose of the court business
promptly and decide cases within the periods prescribed therefor;[3] if, indeed, it otherwise becomes unavoidable, the
judge is not prevented from seeking additional time within which to dispose of
the case[4] by simply filing a request for such extension
seasonably and with good reasons. The heavy caseload in his sala,
although unfortunate, cannot excuse a judge from the due observance of the
rules. Respondent Judge has failed in this regard. Compounding the matter,
Civil Case No. 409-422 for forcible entry should have been resolved in
accordance with the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure, over which respondent
judge has evidently been remiss. His disregard of the rules shows either a
contempt or an ignorance of the law, neither of which is acceptable, for it is
given that a member of the bench keeps himself constantly abreast of legal and
jurisprudential developments, bearing in mind that this learning process never
ceases even as it is so indispensable in the correct dispensation of justice.[5] HTML
WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge Froilan N. Hernandez
guilty of dereliction of duty and ignorance of the law, the Court hereby
imposes a FINE of THREE THOUSAND (P3,000.00) PESOS on him.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman), Purisima, and Gonzaga-Reyes, JJ., concur.
Panganiban, J., on leave.