Republic of the
Supreme Court
|
ERNESTO
Z. ORBE, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE
MANOLITO Y. GUMARANG, Pairing Judge, Municipal Trial Court, Imus, Respondent. |
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1792 [Formerly OCA I.P.I No. 10-2294-MTJ] Present: PERALTA, J.,
Acting Chairperson, ABAD, PEREZ,* PERLAS-BERNABE, JJ. Promulgated: September
26, 2011 |
x---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------x
Before us is an administrative
complaint[1] filed by
complainant Ernesto Z. Orbe (Orbe) against Judge Manolito Y. Gumarang
(respondent), Pairing Judge, Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Imus,
The antecedent facts are as follows:
Orbe is the plaintiff of a small
claims case docketed as Civil Case No. ICSCC 09-65 entitled E.Z. Orbe Tax
Accounting Services, thru, Ernesto Z. Orbe v. L.G.M. Silver Star Credit
Corporation, represented by
Librado Montano, filed before the MTC of Imus,
During the hearing of the case on
Complainant alleged that the case was
scheduled for hearing on
Complainant argued that Judge Gumarang
violated the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases for failure to decide the
civil case within five (5) days from receipt of the order of reassignment.
On
In his Comment[3]
dated
On P5,000.00)
only for violating the Rule of Procedure
for Small Claims Cases.
We agree with the findings and
recommendation of the OCA.
Indeed, Section 22 of the Rule of
Procedure for Small Claims Cases clearly provided for the period within which
judgment should be rendered, to wit:
Section 22. Failure of Settlement If efforts at settlement fail, the hearing shall proceed in an informal and expeditious manner and be terminated within one (1) day. Either party may move in writing to have another judge hear and decide the case. The reassignment of the case shall be done in accordance with existing issuances.
The referral by the original judge
to the Executive Judge shall be made within the same day the motion is filed
and granted, and by the Executive Judge to the designated judge within the same
day of the referral. The new judge shall hear and decide the case within
five (5) days from the receipt of the order of reassignment.[5]
In this case, it is undisputed that it
took more than two (2) months for respondent to render a decision on the
subject case as he himself admitted the series of postponements which occurred
during the pendency of the case. His lone argument was that he hears small
claims cases on Thursdays only, hence, he claimed that, in his case, the period
of five (5) working days being referred to by Section 22 of the Rule should
pertain only to Thursdays.
We are unconvinced.
Judge Gumarang must have missed the
very purpose and essence of the creation of the Rule of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases, as his interpretation of the Rule is rather misplaced. It is, therefore, imperative to emphasize
what the Court sought to accomplish in creating the Rule of Procedure for Small
Claims Cases, to wit:
x x x Thus, pursuant to its
rule-making power, the Court, under the present Constitution, can adopt a
special rule of procedure to govern small claims cases and select pilot courts
that would empower the people to bring suits before them pro se to resolve legal disputes involving
simple issues of law and procedure without the need for legal representation
and extensive judicial intervention. This system will enhance access to
justice, especially by those who cannot afford the high costs of litigation
even in cases of relatively small value.
It is envisioned that by facilitating the traffic of cases through
simple and expeditious rules and means, our Court can improve the perception of
justice in this country, thus, giving citizens a renewed stake in preserving
peace in the land. x x x[6]
The
theory behind the small claims system is that ordinary litigation fails to
bring practical justice to the parties when the disputed claim is small,
because the time and expense required by the ordinary litigation process is so
disproportionate to the amount involved that it discourages a just resolution
of the dispute. The small claims process
is designed to function quickly and informally.
There are no lawyers, no formal pleadings and no strict legal rules of
evidence.[7]
Thus, the intent of the law in providing the period to hear
and decide cases falling under the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases,
which is within five (5) days from the receipt of the order of assignment, is
very clear. The exigency of prompt
rendition of judgment in small claims cases is a matter of public policy. There is no room for further interpretation;
it does not require respondent's exercise of discretion. He is duty-bound to adhere to the rules and
decide small claims cases without undue delay.
The need for prompt resolution of small claims cases is
further emphasized by Section 19 of the Rule, which provides that:
SEC. 19. Postponement When Allowed. A request
for postponement of a hearing may be granted only upon proof of the
physical inability of the party to appear before the court
on the scheduled date and time. A party may avail of only one (1) postponement.
In the instant
case, it is noteworthy to mention that the postponements were not attributed to
any of the parties to the case. The numerous postponements, which in
some instances were upon respondent's initiative, were uncalled for and
unjustified, considering that it was already established that all efforts for
amicable settlement were futile. Thus,
the postponements were clear violation of the Rule and defeat the very essence
of the Rule.
Time and again, we
have ruled that when the rules of procedure are clear and unambiguous, leaving
no room for interpretation, all that is needed to do is to simply apply
it. Failure to apply elementary rules of
procedure constitutes gross ignorance of the law and procedure. In the instant case, neither good faith nor
lack of malice will exonerate respondent, as the rules violated were basic
procedural rules.
We cannot countenance undue delay in the disposition of
cases or motions, especially now when there is an all-out effort to minimize if
not totally eradicate the problem of congestion long
plaguing our courts. The requirement
that cases be decided within the reglementary period is designed to prevent
delay in the administration of justice.
For obviously, justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases erodes the
faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lowers its standards, and
brings it into disrepute.[8]
Section 9 (1), Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as
amended, provides that undue delay in rendering a decision or order is
classified as a less serious charge, which is punishable by suspension from
office, without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) or more
than three (3) months; or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not
exceeding P20,000.00. Considering
that the Rule on small claims is a new rule, and that this is respondent
judges first violation of the rule, we deem it proper to impose a fine in the
amount of P5,000.00.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds Judge Manolito Y.
Gumarang, Municipal Trial Court, Imus, Cavite, GUILTY of Undue Delay in
Rendering a Decision and Violation of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims
Cases, and is hereby ORDERED to
pay a fine of Five Thousand Pesos (P5,000.00) and WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
act shall be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
DIOSDADO M.
PERALTA
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
|
ROBERTO A. ABAD |
Associate Justice
JOSE
Associate Justice Associate Justice
ESTELA M. PERLAS-BERNABE
Associate Justice
*
Designated additional member
in lieu of Associate Justice Presbitero J. Velasco, Jr., per Special Order No.
1102 dated
[1] Rollo, pp. 1-4.
[2]
[3]
[4]
[5] Emphasis supplied.
[6]
A.M. No. 08-8-7-SC, RULE OF
PROCEDURE FOR SMALL CLAIMS CASES, EFFECTIVE
[7] Rollo, p. 36.
[8] Visbal v. Sescon, 456 Phil. 552, 558-559 (2003).