THIRD DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1591. April 11, 2002]
LAURENTINO D. BASCUG, complainant, vs. JUDGE GRACIANO
H. ARINDAY, JR., Presiding Judge, Branch 69, Regional Trial Court of Negros
Occidental, Silay City, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
VITUG,
J.:
A complaint, dated 01
December 1997, initiated by Laurentino D. Bascug, has charged Judge Graciano H.
Arinday, Jr., of the Regional Trial Court of Silay City, Branch 69, with grave
misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, malicious delay in the
administration of justice, and violation of the code of judicial conduct.
Relative to Civil Cases
No. 1797-69, entitled "Spouses Laurentino and Estrella Bascug, et al., vs.
Spouses Loreto Duganggay," and No. 1798-69, entitled "Spouses
Laurentino and Estrella Bascug, et al., vs. Spouses Romeo Abuagan, et
al.," complainant Laurentino Bascug charged respondent judge with delaying
the proceedings thereat. The civil
cases, formerly docketed Civil Cases No. 624-V and No. 633-V, were originally
filed with the Municipal Circuit Trial Court ("MCTC") of
Victorias-Manapla, Negros Occidental.
On 15 May 1995, the MCTC rendered a decision dismissing the cases on the
ground that no certificate of barangay conciliation was attached to the
complaints. The plaintiffs subsequently
appealed the decision to the Regional Trial Court ("RTC") of Silay
City. The appeal was assigned to
respondent judge. In an order, dated 20
October 1995, respondent judge reversed the 15th May 1995 decision
of the MCTC and ordered the latter to conduct further proceedings on the
cases. The defendants filed a motion
for reconsideration but, because it did not bear the signature of defendants'
counsel, the motion was denied by respondent judge. A second motion for reconsideration was filed on 16 January 1996. In his order, dated 23 January 1996,
respondent judge lifted the denial of the first motion for reconsideration and
gave due course to the second motion for reconsideration. On 12 November 1996, respondent judge
ultimately denied the second motion for reconsideration for lack of merit. It was only, however, in his order of 13
June 1997 that respondent judge required the Clerk of Court to remand the
entire records of the cases to MCTC Victorias-Manapla for further
proceedings. Complainant Bascug attributed
the delay in the disposition of the cases to the alleged influence on
respondent judge by the mayor of the municipality of Victorias.
In respect to Civil Case
No. 1718-69, entitled "Vicente Ditching, Jr., for himself and as ASSIGNEE
of his co-heirs; viz: Ester, Editha, Juan, Corazon, Josefa, Otelia,
Rosita, Jose Ramon, Marciano, Samson, Ciello, Herminio and Marino, all surnamed
Ditching vs. Odisco Farms System Cooperative Foundation, represented by Leyte
Salvacion B. Monteroso, accompanied by her husband Glenn Monteroso and Lino
Cornelio Cecilio Bascug," complainant Bascug charged respondent judge with
gross misconduct when he directed a judgment on the pleadings. Complainant
Bascug claimed that respondent judge had declared the parties as having agreed
to the rendition of a judgment on the pleadings even while the defendant
corporation, Odisco Farms System Cooperative Foundation of which complainant
Bascug was the President, had never agreed to it. In fact, complainant Bascug stated, the corporation precisely did
not submit any memorandum for judgment on the pleadings required by respondent
judge in his order of 20 December 1994.
On 04 April 1995, respondent judge, nevertheless, rendered a judgment
based on the pleadings in favor of the plaintiffs. A motion for the reconsideration of the decision was denied in an
order of 11 December 1995. The case was
later brought to the Court of Appeals. In its decision, dated 14 August 1998,
the appellate court set aside the appealed judgment and remanded the case to
the court a quo for further proceedings.
In Criminal Case No.
4000-69, entitled "The People of the Philippines vs. Vicente Ditching,
Jr., et al.," complainant Bascug, the father-in-law of the complaining
witness, asserted that there was irregularity in the service of the warrant of
arrest against the accused. He averred
that respondent judge had failed to commence any prosecution against the
persons liable.
Required to submit his
comment on the complaint, respondent judge refuted the several allegations in
the complaint. He attributed the delay
in the resolution of Civil Cases No. 1797-69 and No. 1798-69 to the former
counsel of complainant who had failed to file any opposition to the second
motion for reconsideration. He denied
the averment that he delayed the resolution of the cases due to the influence
over him by the municipal mayor of Victorias.
As regards Civil Case No. 1718-69, respondent judge maintained that the
parties, including the former counsel of complainant, had manifested that they
had no objection to the submission of the case for judgment on the
pleadings. Respondent judge disowned
any irregularity in Criminal Case No. 4000-69.
He argued that if, indeed, there was any problem about the service of
the warrant of arrest, that matter should have been addressed to Senior
Inspector Larry Decena, Chief of Police of Victorias, Negros Occidental.
In reply to the comment
of respondent Judge relating to Civil Case No. 1718-69, complainant Bascug
submitted a certification from the Clerk of Court of the Court of Appeals
stating that, on the basis of the records of CA-G.R. CV No. 54234 (formerly
Civil Case No. 1718-69), no memorandum for a judgment on the pleadings was
filed by the defendants.
The matter was referred
by the Court to the Office of the Court Administrator ("OCA") for
evaluation, report and recommendation.
In its memorandum, dated 15 August 2000, the OCA found respondent judge
liable for his failure to resolve the second motion for reconsideration in
Civil Cases No. 1797-69 and No. 1798-69 within the reglementary period and for
grave misconduct in issuing an order, dated 11 December 1995, in Civil Case No.
1718-69, stating that the parties had agreed to submit the case for judgment on
the pleadings even though the defendant corporation in the civil case did not
apparently agree thereto. The OCA
recommended that a fine in the amount of P5,000.00 be imposed for unreasonably
delaying the proceedings in Civil Cases No. 1797-69 and No. 1798-69 and for
grave misconduct in Civil Case No. 1718-69.
The Court adopts the
recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.
A motion for
reconsideration should be resolved within thirty days from the time it is
submitted for resolution.[1] In this case, the second motion for
reconsideration was filed on 16 January 1996 and respondent judge issued an
order, dated 23 January 1996, giving it due course. The motion was eventually resolved by respondent judge only on 12
November 1996, and directed, only on 13 June 1997, the Clerk of Court to remand
the records of the case to MCTC Victorias-Manapla for further proceedings. The failure of respondent judge to act with
reasonable dispatch on the matter constituted gross inefficiency on his part. Moreover, respondent judge ought to have
known that, under the rules, a second motion for reconsideration should not be
allowed.[2]
The Court has often given
reminder that any delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and
confidence of our people in the judiciary and brings it into unnecessary
disrepute.[3] It is indeed a situation that cannot just be
ignored.
With regard to the order
of respondent judge holding Civil Case No. 1718-69 submitted for judgment on
the pleadings, Section 1, Rule 34, of the Rules on Civil Procedure provides -
"(W)here an answer fails to tender an issue or otherwise admits the material allegations of the adverse party's pleading, the court may on motion of that party, direct judgment on such pleading."
In
his order, dated 20 December 1994, respondent judge required the parties to submit
their respective memoranda for a judgment on the pleadings. Complainant was the
President of the defendant corporation who maintained that the corporation
never agreed to have the case submitted for judgment on the pleadings. As so aptly put by the Court of Appeals in
its decision of 14 August 1998 -
"It is believed that under the circumstances of the case, judgment on the pleadings was not called for and prevented a fair and full resolution of controversy. The trial court stated that both parties agreed to have judgment on the pleadings, the minutes of the session held on December 20, 1994 merely stated that `both parties will submit their respective memoranda for judgment on the pleadings' (p. 57, Record). Only the plaintiffs submitted Memorandum praying for judgment on the pleadings; the defendants did not submit their memorandum for judgment on the pleadings. In fact, in their Motion for Reconsideration of the Judgment on the pleadings, the defendants pointed out that the parties presented `widely opposing contentions' in their respective pre-trial brief, and the court cannot rely on `conjectures' on the `wild' monetary claims of plaintiffs. In view of the objections expressed by the defendants to the issues raised, there was no clear agreement to submit the case to a judgment or the pleadings, much less an implied admission of each other's factual allegations, which the defendants-appellants correctly describe as `widely opposing,' that would support a submission by the parties to a judgment on the pleadings."
The Court shares the view
of OCA that respondent judge has fallen below circumspection and the standard
of conduct expected of him.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Graciano H. Arinday,
Jr., of the Regional Trial Court of Silay City, Negros Occidental, Branch 69,
guilty of gross inefficiency and grave misconduct and hereby imposes on him a
fine of FIVE THOUSAND PESOS with a warning that any further infraction will be
dealt with severely.
SO ORDERED.
Melo, (Chairman),
Panganiban, Sandoval-Gutierrez, and Carpio,
JJ., concur.