Third Division
|
JOSEPHINE SARMIENTO and Complainants, - versus - Respondent. |
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1743 [Formerly A.M. No. OCA IPI No.
08-1954-MTJ] Present: CARPIO
MORALES, Chairperson, BRION, BERSAMIN, ABAD,* and VILLARAMA, JR., JJ. Promulgated: August
3, 2010 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
R E S O L U T I O N
CARPIO
MORALES, J.:
In a December 22, 2007 Verified
Complaint,[1]
Josephine Sarmiento and Mary Jane Mansanilla (complainants) charged Judge Aznar
D. Lindayag (respondent), in his capacity as Assisting Judge of the Municipal
Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), San Francisco del Monte, Bulacan, with Grave
Abuse of Authority and Ignorance of the Law.
Gathered from the rollo are the following facts which spawned the filing of the
present administrative case.
The Spouses Eliseto
Panchito Burlas and Carmelita Burlas filed on April 20, 1990 a complaint for
ejectment against herein complainants before the then Municipal Trial Court,
now the MTCC, San Jose del Monte presided by respondent.
Respondent dismissed the ejectment complaint by
Decision of March 14, 2000[2]
in this wise:
Whereas
here, the only definite ultimate fact averred is “that on or about October 20,
1998, due to the urgent need of the plaintiffs for the said property the
defendants were notified and given by the plaintiffs a period of thirty (30)
days from said date within which to vacate the said property to enable the
plaintiffs to occupy the same.
A complaint for “ejectment” which does not show [how] defendants’
possession started or continued is defective (Devesa vs. Montecillo, 27 SCRA 822). (underscoring in the original; italics supplied)
The decision became final and executory on June 13, 2000.
A year and eight months later or on February 2,
2002, the Burlas spouses filed another complaint (second complaint) for ejectment against the same defendants-herein
complainants involving the same property and the same cause of action before
the same MTCC presided by respondent.
The defendants-herein complainants raised res judicata as defense in the second complaint.
The second
complaint was submitted for decision on June 16, 2002. Close to four years later or on May 31, 2006,
respondent decided the case, this time against herein complainants.
In their present administrative complaint,
complainants charge that by respondent’s delay in deciding the second complaint, he is liable for
malicious delay in the administration of justice.
Complainants add that respondent’s decision in the
second complaint was tainted with bad
faith and grave abuse of authority and rendered in gross ignorance of the law as
he favored the Burlas spouses, their non-submission of substantial evidence of
possession notwithstanding.
In his February 20, 2008
Comment,[3]
respondent maintains that the second complaint
was not barred by res judicata as his decision in the first case was not
on the merits.
While respondent assumes
responsibility for the delay in rendering the decision, he posits that the
“administrative lapse was not malicious considering the peculiar situation” he
was in which he details as follows:
The
undersigned is the Presiding Judge of MTC-Pandi, Bulacan since
1992 and the Assisting Judge of MTCC-San Jose del Monte City since
1995 up to the present. In this station, I conduct trials every Tuesdays
and Thursdays of the week. In this additional station, I do not have the luxury
of having a chamber. I only share a room and a table with another office staff
because of the very acute space problem. Here, party litigants wait for the
call of their cases in the adjacent public market or in a nearby plaza.
In
our very crowded office, records do get misplaced or misfiled with no conscious
design, dishonest purpose or some moral obliquity to cause injury to a party
litigant.
Your
honor, please look with favor at the fact that the dual positions of being
the Presiding Judge of MTC-Pandi and Assisting Judge of MTCC-San Jose del Monte
with their concomitant workload, necessarily spreads my mental and physical
resources too thinly which accounts for those occasional administrative
infractions attributable to human frailties for which I am truly sorry.[4] (underscoring supplied)
In its July 20, 2009
Report,[5]
the OCA gives the following Evaluation:
x x x x
. . . The mere fact that the respondent
judge was serving as acting presiding judge in another sala does not constitute
sufficient reason to exonerate him from liability for delay in rendering
decisions and resolving motions. This is not to prescind from his situation as
a judge handling two courts. It has been stressed in several decisions that if
it becomes unavoidable for a judge to render a decision or resolve a matter
beyond the mandatory period, he may seek additional time by simply filing a
request for such time extension seasonably and supported by valid reasons. The
respondent did not avail himself of this action.
Section
5, Canon 6 (Competence and Diligence) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for
the Philippine Judiciary directs judges to “perform all judicial duties,
including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with
reasonable promptness.” The heavy load in the respondent’s sala, though
unfortunate, cannot exempt him from due observance of the provisions of the
Code.[6]
(underscoring supplied)
The OCA Report reflects that
respondent had previously been charged in OCA IPI No. 07-1885-MTJ which was
dismissed by the Court in August 8, 2007, although he was
admonished to be more circumspect in observing the
reglementary period for disposing of motions and deciding cases; and was
sternly warned that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with
more severely, [relieved] of his assignment as Assisting Judge of the MTCC at
San Jose del Monte City. (emphasis and
underscoring supplied)
The Report further reflects
that respondent was also administratively charged in OCA IPI No. 08-2009-MTJ,
for Inefficiency and/or Undue Delay in the Resolution of a Motion for
Issuance of Writ of Execution filed against him in his capacity as the Assisting
Judge of the MTCC at San Jose del Monte City, which is presently being
evaluated.[7]
The OCA thus recommends
that respondent be fined in the amount of P15,000.
The Court finds the evaluation and
recommendation of the OCA well-taken. It
bears stressing that ejectment cases must be resolved with great dispatch.[8] Their nature calls for it. As Five Star Marketing Co., Inc. v. Booc[9] holds:
Forcible entry and unlawful detainer cases are summary proceedings designed to provide an expeditious means of protecting actual possession or the right to the possession of the property involved. It does not admit of a delay in the determination thereof. It is a “time procedure” designed to remedy the situation. Stated in another way, the avowed objective of actions for forcible entry and unlawful detainer, which have purposely been made summary in nature, is to provide a peaceful, speedy and expeditious means of preventing an alleged illegal possessor of property from unjustly continuing his possession for a long time, thereby ensuring the maintenance of peace and order in the community; otherwise, the party illegally deprived of possession might feel the despair of long waiting and decide as a measure of self-protection to take the law into his hands and seize the same by force and violence. And since the law discourages continued wrangling over possession of property for it involves perturbation of social order which must be restored as promptly as possible, technicalities or details of procedure which may cause unnecessary delays should accordingly and carefully be avoided.
In accordance with the above objective, the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure set forth the steps to expeditiously dispose of the cases covered by the rules, as in ejectment…[10] (emphasis supplied)
That explains why Section 10 of the Revised
Rules on Summary Procedure[11] which
applies to an ejectment complaint, among others, directs that within 30 days
after the receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration
of the period for filing the same, the trial court should render judgment on
the case. Without any order of extension
granted by this Court, the failure to decide even a single case within the
required period constitutes gross inefficiency.[12]
That it took respondent almost four years to decide the second complaint unmistakably shows his
inefficiency. His above-quoted explanation-justification
therefor does not indeed convince. Just
as his statement about records getting misplaced or misfiled does not. The New Code of Judicial Conduct for the
Philippine Judiciary requires judges to “devote their professional activity
to judicial duties, which include not only the performance of judicial
functions and responsibilities in court and the making of decisions, but also
other tasks relevant to the judicial office or the court’s operations.”
Rule 3.08 of the Code of Judicial Conduct[13]
requires that a judge should be diligent in discharging administrative
responsibilities and should maintain professional competence in court
management, hence, it is incumbent upon him to devise an efficient recording
and filing system so that no disorderliness can affect the flow of cases and
their speedy disposition.[14]
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court,
undue delay in rendering a decision is a
less serious charge in which any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
(a) suspension from the service without salary and other benefits for not less
than one month nor more than three months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000
but not more than P20,000.
Respondent having been previously admonished in A.M. OCA IPI No.
07-1885-MTJ to be more circumspect in observing the reglementary periods for
resolving motions and rendering decisions, not to mention that he was again charged
for undue delay in resolving a motion in OCA IPI No. 08-2009-MTJ which is
pending evaluation, the recommended fine of P15,000 is in order.
WHEREFORE, Judge Aznar D.
Lindayag, Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose Del Monte
City, Bulacan, is, for undue delay in resolving Civil case No. 11-2002-SJ, FINED
in the amount of Fifteen Thousand (P15,000) Pesos.
SO OR
CONCHITA
CARPIO MORALES
Associate Justice
Chairperson
WE CONCUR:
|
ARTURO D. BRION Associate Justice |
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN Associate Justice |
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD Associate Justice |
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
* Additional member per Special Order No. 838 dated May 17, 2010.
[1] Rollo,
pp. 1-10. It was verified only on
[2] Id. at 23-24.
[3] Id. at 49-52.
[4] Id. at 51-52.
[5] Id. at 69-75.
[6] Id. at 74.
[7] Id. at 73.
[8] Vide Salandanan v. Mendez,
G.R. No. 160280,
[9] G.R. No. 143331,
[10] Id. at 43-44.
[11] RESOLUTION OF THE COURT EN BANC DATED OCTOBER 15, 1991 PROVIDING FOR THE REVISED RULE ON SUMMARY PROCEDURE FOR METROPOLITAN TRIAL COURTS, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS IN CITIES, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURTS AND MUNICIPAL CIRCUIT TRIAL COURTS.
[12] Vide Saceda v. Judge Gestopa, Jr.,
423 Phil. 420, 424 (2001).
[13] The New Code of Judicial Conduct provides that in case of deficiency or absence of specific provisions in the Code, the Canons of Judicial Ethics and the Code of Judicial Conduct shall be applicable in a suppletory character.
[14] Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Cagayan de Oro City, A.M. No. 02-8-207-MTCC, July 27, 2009, 594 SCRA 20, 33-34.