Republic of
the
THIRD DIVISION
AMELIA DELA CRUZ- [Formerly
OCA IPI No. 02-1216-MTJ]
GUMABON, ANALITA DELA
CRUZ and LEONARDO DELA
CRUZ, Present:
Complainants,
YNARES-SANTIAGO, J., Chairperson,
- versus
- AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ,
CALLEJO, SR.,*
CHICO-NAZARIO, and
NACHURA, JJ.
JUDGE
PLACIDO B. VALLARTA,
Municipal Circuit Trial Court,
Cabiao-San Isidro, Nueva Ecija, Promulgated:
Respondent. March
6, 2007
x -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - x
AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ, J.
Before us is a Complaint-Affidavit[1] dated March 1, 2002 of Pastora dela Cruz, et al. (complainants) charging Judge Placido B. Vallarta (respondent), Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC), Cabiao, Nueva Ecija with Gross Inefficiency, Gross Negligence and Gross Ignorance of the Law, relative to Civil Case No. 2000-36, entitled “Heirs of the Late David G. dela Cruz v. Spouses Virgilio and Carmen Bunag” for Unlawful Detainer with Prayer for Issuance of a Writ of Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining Order.
Complainants
allege: On July 13, 2000, they filed a case for Unlawful Detainer
with Prayer for the Issuance of Preliminary Injunction or Temporary Restraining
Order against Spouses Virgilio and Carmen Bunag over a certain parcel of land situated at Barangay Entablado, Cabiao, Nueva Ecija
with an area of eight thousand (8,000) square meters, more or less, covered by
Certificate of Land Transfer No. O-069485. The
application for a writ of preliminary injunction was set for hearing on
In its 1st Indorsement,[2] dated
For failure
of respondent to comply with the said directive, the OCA sent a 1st
Tracer[3] dated
EVALUATION: x x x
During
the Barangay Elections in 2002, respondent filed his
certificate of candidacy and he was considered to have automatically resigned
from the service effective
The
1st Tracer dated
Respondent's
resignation during the pendency of the case did not
divest the Supreme Court of its jurisdiction to pronounce whether he is
innocent or guilty of the charges.
The
charges are:
1. Respondent judge failed to render judgment despite the
motion filed by the complainants who were plaintiff[s] in Civil
Case No. 2000-36 for Unlawful Detainer for failure of
the defendants to file answer; and,
2. Respondent gave judicial cognizance to a Motion to
Dismiss filed by the defendants which is a prohibitive pleading.
The
charges are meritorious.
Under
the law, if the defendant in a case of Unlawful Detainer
fails to file an answer to the complaint within ten (10) days from the service
of summons, the court motu proprio or on motion of the plaintiff, render judgment as may
be warranted. (Section
7, Rule 70, 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure). Defendants were served with summons on
1. The penalty for administrative
offenses are either fine, suspension from office without pay, censure,
reprimand, and in grave offenses, dismissal from service. Under Rule 140 of [the] Rules of
Court the penalty for the offense of undue delay in rendering decision or order
is suspension from office without pay for one (1) to two (2) months or a fine
of not less than P10,000.00. Considering that
respondent is no longer in the service, the penalty of suspension cannot be imposed. The alternative penalty is to pay a fine.
RECOMMENDATION: Respectfully submitted for the consideration of the Honorable Court
the recommendations that:
1. The instant complaint be RE-DOCKETED
as a regular administrative matter and, respondent be penalized to pay a FINE of P10,000.00
to be deducted from the monetary benefits he may receive from the court; and
2. The Court Management Office be DIRECTED to conduct a Judicial Audit to determine the actual cases disposed of by respondent Judge Vallarta prior to his resignation.[4]
The Court,
in its Resolution[5] of
In its
Resolution[7] of
In
compliance, the OCA, in its Memorandum[8] of
On July 22,
2005, the Postmaster of Cabiao, Nueva
Ecija issued a certification[11] stating
that Judge Placido B. Vallarta has resigned his post
and said addressee is not a resident of Cabiao, Nueva Ecija. Thus, in the Resolution of
Again, the
Resolution addressed to Judge Vallarta was returned to sender with the notation
“Unclaimed.”[12] Hence, the Court, in its Resolution of
To date,
respondent has not complied with the said Resolution of
We agree with the findings and recommendations of the OCA with slight modification as to the penalty recommended.
Sections 6 and 7 of Rule 70 of the
1997 Rules of Civil Procedure provides that if the defendant in a case of
Unlawful Detainer fails to file an answer to the
complaint within ten (10) days from the service of summons, the court motu proprio or on motion of the
plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted.
Records show that the defendants in Civil Case No. 2000-36 failed to
file their answer within the reglementary period and
for such failure, the complainants filed a Motion to Render Judgment. However, even after the lapse of time within
which to comply, respondent still allowed and accepted the Motion to Dismiss
filed by the defendants. And even after
denying the Motion to Dismiss, still respondent failed to resolve the Motion to
Render Judgment filed by the complainants. Thus, the complainants filed a
Motion for Early Resolution which was not acted upon by the respondent until his resignation.
Clearly, respondent was remiss in his
duty to dispose of the cases with deliberate dispatch thus, warranting
administrative sanction from this Court.
Article VIII, Section 15(1) of the Constitution mandates lower court judges to decide a case within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days. Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct likewise enunciates that judges should administer justice without delay and directs every judge to dispose of the court’s business promptly within the period prescribed by law. Rules prescribing the time within which certain acts must be done are indispensable to prevent needless delays in the orderly and speedy disposition of cases. Thus, the ninety-day period is mandatory.[14]
This
mandate applies even to motions or interlocutory matters or incidents pending
before a magistrate.[15]
Records
show that up to the time of the filing of herein complaint on
Records
also show that respondent was considered to have automatically resigned from
the service effective
Inability
to decide a case within the required period is not excusable and constitutes
gross inefficiency. The Court has
constantly reminded judges to decide cases promptly. Delay not only results in undermining the
people’s faith in the judiciary from whom the prompt hearing of their
supplications is anticipated and expected; it also reinforces in the mind of
the litigants the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly,
and worse, it invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of the judge.[17] Failure to decide cases on time constitutes
inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.[18]
Moreover,
the Code of Judicial Conduct decrees that a judge should administer justice impartially
and without delay. He should be imbued with a high sense of duty
and responsibility in the discharge of his obligation to promptly administer justice.
It need not be overemphasized that any delay in the determination or
resolution of a case no matter how insignificant is, at the bottom line, delay
in the administration of justice in general.[19]
Delay in
resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of 90-days fixed by the constitution
and the law is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency.[20] We cannot countenance such undue delay by a
judge, especially at a time when clogging of court dockets is still the bane of
the judiciary, whose present leadership has launched an all out program to
minimize, if not totally eradicate, docket congestion and undue delay in the
disposition of cases.[21] Prompt disposition of cases is attained
basically through the efficiency and dedication to duty of judges. If they do not possess these traits, delay in
the disposition of cases is inevitable, to the prejudice of litigants. Accordingly, judges should be imbued with a
high sense of duty and responsibility in the discharge of their obligation to
promptly administer justice.[22]
A judge’s
failure to resolve motions and other pending incidents within the prescribed
period constitutes gross inefficiency.
Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and
confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its
stature.[23]
No less
than the Constitution mandates judges to decide cases with deliberate dispatch.
Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to dispose of
the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. For it cannot be gainsaid that justice
delayed is justice denied.
Procrastination among members of the judiciary in rendering decisions
and acting upon cases before them not only causes great injustice to the
parties involved but also invites suspicion of ulterior motives on the part of
the judge.[24] If public confidence in the judiciary is to
be preserved, judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence.[25] There is no excuse for delay or negligence in
the performance of judicial functions.
For failure
of respondent to resolve motions and pending incidents relative to Civil Case
No. 2000-36, he is found guilty thereof and should be penalized accordingly.
Rule 140 of
the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies gross
inefficiency or undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious
charge which carries any of the following sanctions: suspension from office
without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three
(3) months or a fine of more than P10,000.00
but not exceeding P20,000.00.
Since
respondent was already considered automatically resigned from the service on P11,000.00.
Anent respondent's failure to comply with the Court directives.
In Re: Audit Report in Attendance of Court Personnel of Regional Trial Court, Branch 32, Manila,[26] citing the case of Imbang v. Del Rosario,[27] the Court held that the office of the judge requires him to obey all the lawful orders of his superiors. It is gross misconduct, even outright disrespect for the Court, for respondent judge to exhibit indifference to the resolution requiring him to comment on the accusations in the complaint thoroughly and substantially. After all, a resolution of the Supreme Court should not be construed as a mere request, and should be complied with promptly and completely. Such failure to comply accordingly betrays not only a recalcitrant streak in character, but also disrespect for the Court's lawful order and directive.[28]
As held in Soria v. Villegas,[29] citing
the case of Alonto-Frayna v. Astih,[30] a judge
who deliberately and continuously fails and refuses to comply with the
resolution of this Court is guilty of gross misconduct and insubordination. It is gross misconduct and even outright
disrespect to this Court for respondent to exhibit indifference to the
resolutions requiring him to comment on the accusations contained in the
complaint against him.
And in Sabado v. Cajigal,[31] the Court held that in failing to comment on
the letter-complaint against him despite repeated directives to do so,
respondent judge neglected his duty, as a member of the court, to defend
himself against an administrative charge.
Judges are
called upon to comply with the directives of the OCA which under Presidential Decree
No. 828,[32]
as amended by Presidential Decree No. 842, are mandated to assist this Court in
the exercise of its power of administrative supervision over all courts. When the judge himself becomes the
transgressor of the law which he is sworn to apply, he places his office in
disrepute, encourages disrespect for the law and impairs public confidence in the
integrity of the judiciary itself.[33]
Records
reveal that respondent received on
The
contumacious act of respondent in ignoring all communications coming from the
Court, by not claiming his mail matters from the Postal Office, shows utter
disrespect and contempt of Court.
Respondent's blatant disregard and repeated failure to comply with the
directives of the Court Administrator and the Resolutions of this Court
demonstrated not merely indifference, but disobedience to, disrespect for and
contempt of this Court, the highest tribunal of the land to which he owes
fealty, which merits a penalty of fine in the amount of P5,000.00.[35]
WHEREFORE,
the Court finds Judge Placido B. Vallarta, MCTC, Cabiao-San
Isidro, Nueva Ecija, GUILTY
of gross negligence and is FINED in the amount of P11,000.00.
Moreover, he is likewise found guilty of contempt of court and is FINED
in the amount of P5,000.00.
SO ORDERED.
MA. ALICIA AUSTRIA-MARTINEZ
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
CONSUELO YNARES-SANTIAGO
Associate Justice
Chairperson, Third Division
(On Leave)
|
ROMEO J. CALLEJO, SR. Associate Justice |
MINITA V. CHICO-NAZARIO Associate Justice |
ANTONIO EDUARDO B. NACHURA
Associate Justice
* On Leave.
[1] Rollo, pp.
1-7.
[2] Rollo, p. 53.
[3]
[4]
[5]
[6]
[7]
[8]
[9]
[10]
[11]
[12]
[13]
[14] Office of the Court Administrator v. Dilag, A.M. No.
RTJ-05-1914,
[15] Pesayco
v. Layague, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1889,
[16] Office
of the Court Administrator v. Fernandez, A.M.
No. MTJ-03-1511,
[17] Report on the On-The-Spot Judicial Audit Conducted in
the Regional Trial Court, Branches 45 and 53, Bacolod
City, A.M. No. 00-2-65-RTC, February 15, 2005, 451 SCRA 303, 315; Re:
Report on the Judicial Audit and Physical Inventory of Cases in the Regional
Trial Court, Branch 54, Bacolod City, A.M. No.
06-4-219-RTC, November 2, 2006.
[18] Re: Report of DCA
Ponferada Re Judicial Audit Conducted in Branch 21,
RTC, Cebu City, Judge Genis
B. Balbuena, Presiding, 434 Phil. 731, 739
(2002); Re: Report on the Monitoring of Cases in the RTC, Br. 64, Labo, Camarines Norte, 444
SCRA 4, 11 (2003).
[19] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the
Regional Trial Court, Branches 3, 5, 7, 60 and 61,
[20] Guintu v. Lucero, 329
Phil. 704, 711 (1996).
[21] Sy Bang v. Mendez case, supra note 16, at 530.
[22] Omaña v. Yulde,
A.M. No. MTJ-01-1345,
[23] Gonzales v.
[24] Office of the
Court Administrator v. Quizon, 427 Phil. 63, 79 (2002).
[25] Office of the Court Administrator v. Ulibarri,
A.M. No. RTJ-04-1869,
[26] A.M. No. P-04-1838,
[27] A.M. No. 03-1515-MTJ,
[28] Imbang
v.
[29] 461 Phil. 665, 670 (2003) citing Alonto-Frayna v. Astih, 360
Phil. 385 (1998).
[30] Alonto-Frayna v. Astih case, id.
[31] A.M. No. RTJ-91-666,
[32] Creating the Office of the Court Administrator in the
Supreme Court and Providing Funds Therefor and for
Other Purposes,
[33] Soria v. Villegas case, see note 29, id. at 670.
[34] Received by respondent on
[35] Lagatic v. Peñas, Jr., 342 Phil. 12,
20-21 (1997);