Republic
of the
Supreme
Court
Baguio City
FIRST DIVISION
|
DR. RAMIE G. HIPE, Complainant, - versus - JUDGE
ROLANDO T. LITERATO, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT, MAINIT, SURIGAO DEL NORTE, Respondent. |
|
A.M.
No. MTJ-11-1781 (Formerly OCA I.P.I. No. 09-2161-MTJ) Present: Chairperson, LEONARDO-DE CASTRO BERSAMIN, VILLARAMA, JJ. Promulgated: April
25, 2012 |
x-
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -x
LEONARDO-DE CASTRO, J.:
Before
the Court is an administrative case[1]
for gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, and gross dereliction of
duty filed by Dr. Ramie G. Hipe against Judge Rolando T. Literato, acting judge
of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Mainit, Surigao del Norte, in relation to
Civil Case No. 632.
Civil
Case No. 632 was an action for unlawful detainer, damages, and attorneys fees
instituted by the Municipality of Mainit, Surigao del Norte, represented by
Municipal Mayor Ramon Beltran Mondano, against spouses Dr. Hector and Dr. Ramie
Hipe (spouses Hipe), before the MTC on December 27, 2007.[2] Counsel for the Municipality of Mainit was
Atty. Elmer T. Paniamogan, a vice-mayoralty candidate in the said municipality
during the May 2007 elections who belongs to the same party as Mayor Mondano.
According
to the complaint, Dr. Hector Hipe served as the Municipal Health Officer of
Mainit until he resigned in April 2007 when he ran for Mayor in his hometown in
a.
To
vacate the doctors quarter[s] located at the back of the
b.
To pay to [the P2,000.00 monthly rentals for the use of said premises from
c.
To
pay to [the Muncipality of Mainit] the sum of P20,000.00 as and by way
of attorneys fees plus P2,000.00 per court appearance; and
To pay the costs of the suit.
[The
Summons
was served upon the spouses Hipe on January 11, 2008.
Dr.
Ramie Hipe, through counsel, filed her Answer on January 21, 2008, seeking the
dismissal of Civil Case No. 632 for being illegal, devoid of legal and factual
bases and for utter lack of merit[;][5]
and the grant of her counterclaims for P50,000.00 attorneys fees, P200,000.00
moral damages, and P50,000.00 exemplary damages.
Judge
Literato set the preliminary conference of Civil Case No. 632 on
On
On
2. In her Answer, [Dr. Ramie Hipe] invokes the following
affirmative defenses:
2-a. That she has the right to stay in the Doctors Quarter[s] as
part of the housing privilege granted to her as a Public Health Worker pursuant
to Republic Act 7305, known as the Magna Carta for Public Health Workers. This is purely a question of law which can be
resolved by this Honorable Court in the exercise of its inherent power to
interpret a given provision of law.
2-b. That there is no necessity for her Ejectment as the Doctors
Quarter[s] is capable of accommodating even four (4) persons. This line of defense may be resolved by making
reference to the physical structure of the edifice in question, which, in turn,
may be substantiated thru the conduct of an actual ocular inspection.
2-c. That the filing of the instant case is illegal from the
beginning since the Ejectment of [Dr. Ramie Hipe] interferes with, coerces or
restrains her, as a public health worker, in the exercise of her functions as
such, as well as her right to free housing granted by law, the resolution of
which may be made by reference to Sections 32 and 39 of RA 7305.
3. In addition to the foregoing, [Dr. Ramie Hipe] beseeches
this Honorable Court to take judicial notice of COA Circular No. 98-002
prohibiting employment by local government units of private lawyers to handle
their legal cases and the decided cases of the Supreme Court x x x.[9]
Per
the agreement of the parties, the preliminary conference was again reset by
Judge Literato from April 25, 2008 to May 20, 2008. Apparently, however, the preliminary
conference still did not take place on
Meanwhile,
Judge Literato set for hearing on
On
WHEREFORE, in view of the
foregoing, the [spouses Hipe] are hereby adjudged:
1.
TO
IMMEDIATELY VACATE the two (2)[-]story Building utilized as doctors quarter[s]
and residence of the Municipal Health Officer;
2.
And
that the [spouses Hipe] are hereby adjudged TO PAY the amount of Two Thousand
Pesos (P2,000.00) as filing fee;
3.
The
[Municipality of Mainit] is not entitled to attorneys fees for it is the
Provincial Prosecutor who will represent the [Municipality of Mainit] in any
Court if no Municipal Attorney having been appointed.
In the case at bar, the payment for
attorneys fee shall [be] chargeable to the Municipal Mayor and its Councilors
in private capacity.
They
cannot claim reimbursement from the Municipal Government of Mainit, Surigao del
Norte for being not authorized to do so unless by law. The Municipal Government
of Mainit is authorized to engage the services of the private lawyer to protect
and de[f]end his case.[11]
As
a result of the aforementioned events, Dr. Ramie Hipe filed on June 17, 2009 the
present administrative complaint against Judge Literato, based on the following
grounds: (1) from June 10, 2008 until April 28, 2009, a period of 322 days, Judge
Literato took no further action in Civil Case No. 632, in violation of the Revised
Rule on Summary Procedure; (2) since June 10, 2008 up to the filing of the present
administrative complaint, Judge Literato failed to resolve Dr. Ramie Hipes affirmative
defenses; (3) since June 10, 2008 until the filing of the present
administrative complaint, Judge Literato failed to conduct a preliminary
conference in Civil Case No. 632; (4) Judge Literato already rendered on April
28, 2009 a judgment in favor of the Municipality of Mainit even though the
parties had not been ordered to submit their positions papers, thus, violating
Dr. Ramie Hipes right to due process of law; and (5) Judge Literatos Decision
dated April 28, 2009 in Civil Case No. 632 was grammatically flawed and
displayed his gross incompetence.
In
his defense, Judge Literato averred that the parties failed to appear at the
preliminary conference set on
In
addition, Judge Literato argued that Dr. Ramie Hipe was not the real
party-in-interest in Civil Case No. 632, but her husband, Dr. Hector Hipe. In any case, the issues and defenses raised
by Dr. Ramie Hipe in her Answer in Civil Case No. 632 were already squarely
passed upon in the Decision dated
Lastly,
Judge Literato asserted that the periods provided under the Rules of Court should
be leniently applied to his case as he presides over other salas throughout the
Province of Surigao del Norte. Judge
Literato further explained that he was able to conduct only five hearings in
the MTC of Mainit from July 2008 to March 2009 owing to other official business
(i.e., attending seminars in Boracay
and Manila) and personal constraints (i.e.,
his hospitalization at Mernada Hospital, Surigao City).
On
RECOMMENDATION: It is respectfully recommended for the
consideration of the Honorable Court:
1.
That
the instant case be RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter;
2.
That
Judge Rolando T. Literato be FINED Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00)
per Section 11 [B(2)], Rule 140, Rules of Court. However, he is ADMONISHED anew
to be more circumspect in observing the reglementary periods for disposing of
motions and cases, and that he be STERNLY WARNED with FINALITY that a repetition
of a similar act shall be dealt with UTMOST SEVERITY; and
3.
That
Judge Rolando T. Literatos numerous court assignments be REDUCED in a number
as the Honorable Court may deem appropriate.[13]
The Court agrees with the
recommendations of the OCA, except as to the penalty imposed upon Judge
Literato.
At
the outset, the Court notes that Judge Literatos Decision dated
Significant
herein is Section 7 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which provides:
Sec. 7. Preliminary
conference; appearance of parties. Not
later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary
conference shall be held. The rules
on pre-trial in ordinary cases shall be applicable to the preliminary
conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
The failure of the plaintiff to
appear in the preliminary conference shall be a cause for the dismissal of his
complaint. The defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be
entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in accordance with Section 6 hereof.
All cross-claims shall be dismissed.
If a sole defendant shall fail to
appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment in accordance with Section
6 hereof. This Rule shall not apply
where one of two or more defendants sued under a common cause of action who had
pleaded a common defense shall appear at the preliminary conference. (Emphasis
supplied.)
There
is no question that Civil Case No. 632, a case for ejectment, is covered by the
Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. It is
equally undisputed that in summary procedure, a preliminary conference should
be held not later than 30 days after the last answer has been filed. Considering that no preliminary conference at
all was held in Civil Case No. 632, Judge Literato evidently failed to comply
with a basic rule of procedure for which he should accordingly be held
accountable.
Judge
Literatos inaction in Civil Case No. 632 for 322 days constitutes utter
disregard for the summary nature of an ejectment case.
Rule
3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall
dispose of the courts business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods. In general, courts are required
to decide cases submitted for decision within three months from the date of
such submission.[14]
With respect to cases falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure, first level
courts are only allowed 30 days following the receipt of the last affidavit and
position paper, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, within
which to render judgment.[15]
Competence
is a mark of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack of
familiarity with the rules, he erodes the publics confidence in the competence
of our courts. It is highly imperative that judges be conversant with the
law and basic legal principles. Basic legal procedures must be at the
palm of a judges hands.[16]
There
is no showing herein that Judge Literato required the parties to file their
position papers. Dr. Ramie Hipe filed
her Answer in Civil Case No. 632 on January
21, 2008. Dr. Ramie Hipe also filed
her motion to resolve her affirmative defenses on March 31, 2009, which was heard and submitted for resolution by
Judge Literato on June 10, 2008. Judge Literatos next action thereafter was
to render a Decision in Civil Case No. 632 on April 28, 2009. Even if the Court counts only from June 10,
2008 (the latest incident in Civil Case No. 632), it took Judge Literato 322
days to finally dispose of the case.
Judge
Literato irrefragably failed to promptly decide Civil Case No. 632 in
accordance with the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Judge Literatos inaction
in Civil Case No. 632 is contrary to the rationale behind the Rule on Summary
Procedure, which was precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and
inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of
litigants to the speedy disposition of cases.[17]
The
Court cannot stress enough the importance of prompt and expeditious resolution
of cases. The Court reiterates its
pronouncement in Sanchez v. Vestil[18]:
This Court has constantly
impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, for
it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines
the peoples faith and confidence in the judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases
with dispatch. Their failure to do so
constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative
sanction on them.[19]
Judge
Literato explains his delay in resolving Civil Case No. 632 by citing his
duties in other courts throughout Surigao del Norte. Such an excuse is
unacceptable. The additional court assignments or designations imposed
upon Judge Literato does not make him less liable for the delay.[20]
As the Court ruled in Espaola v. Panay,[21]
if the caseload of the judge prevents the disposition of cases within the
reglementary periods, he should ask this Court for a reasonable extension of
time to dispose of the cases involved. This is to avoid or dispel any
suspicion that something sinister or corrupt is going on. Judge Literato
never made such a request. Instead, he kept his silence and left Civil
Case No. 632, an ejectment case falling under the Revised Rule for Summary
Procedure, pending for nearly a year.
In
sum, Judge Literato is administratively guilty of gross ignorance of the Rule
on Summary Procedure and undue delay in rendering a decision.
Under
Section 8(9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC,
gross ignorance of the law or procedure is classified as a serious
charge. Section 11(A) of the same Rule provides that the penalty to be
imposed if a respondent Judge is found guilty of a serious charge is either a
fine of more than P20,000.00 but not more than P40,000.00,
suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three
but not exceeding six months, or dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all
or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from
reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned
or controlled corporations.
Section
9 of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies undue delay in
rendering a decision and violation of Supreme Court circulars as a less serious
charge for which the penalty is suspension from office without salary and other
benefits for one month to three months, or a fine of P10,000.00 to P20,000.00.
Section
17 of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Civil Service Law states that if the
respondent Judge is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty
imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or counts and
the rest may be considered aggravating circumstances.
The
most serious of the charges against Judge Literato is his gross ignorance of
the Rule on Summary Procedure, and his undue delay in deciding Civil Case No.
632 is considered an aggravating circumstance.
Another aggravating circumstance is the fact that Judge Literato was
previously charged and found guilty of gross inefficiency and gross negligence in
A.M. No. 03-10-250-MCTC, for which he had been fined P20,000.00. [22]
However,
the Court takes into consideration that aside from his regular station in MTC-Taganaan,
Surigao del Norte, Judge Literato sits as acting judge in the MTC-Mainit, and
the MCTCs of Dapa, Socorro; Claver, Gicaquit; Del Carmen-Numancia, San Isidro,
San Benito; General Luna, Pilar; Malimono, San Francisco; Placer, Bacnag; Sta.
Monica, Burgos; and Tubod, Alegria.
Additionally, Judge Literato has been in the service of the judiciary
for 26 years.
Given
the foregoing, the penalty of fine in the amount of P30,000.00[23]
is deemed commensurate with Judge Literatos infractions.
WHEREFORE,
respondent Judge Rolando T. Literato is FINED
in the amount of P30,000.00 for gross ignorance of the Rule on Summary
Procedure and unreasonable delay in rendering a
judgment in Civil Case No. 632, and
is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition
of the same or similar acts in the future shall be dealt with utmost severity. Moreover, the Office of the Court
Administrator is ORDERED to submit a
report and recommendation on how Judge Rolando Literatos numerous court
assignments could be reduced to a more reasonable and manageable number.
SO ORDERED.
Associate Justice
WE CONCUR:
Chief Justice
Chairperson
LUCAS P. BERSAMIN
Associate
Justice |
MARIANO C. Associate Justice
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MARTIN S. VILLARAMA, JR. Associate Justice |
|
[1]
Rollo, pp.
1-12.
[2]
Id. at 13-18.
[3]
Dr. Ramie Hipe is the Medical Director of the Medicare
Hospital in Mainit, which is operated and maintained by the Provincial
Government of Surigao del Norte.
[4] Rollo, pp. 16-17.
[5] Id. at 34.
[6]
Id. at 46.
[7]
Id. at 47-48.
[8]
Id. at 50-56.
[9] Id. at 50-51.
[10]
Id. at 63-68.
[11] Id. at 67-68.
[12]
[13] Id. at 118-119.
[14] Constitution of the Philippines, Article VIII, Section 15.
[15] Section 10, Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, completely reads:
SEC.10. Rendition
of judgment. Within thirty (30) days after receipt of the last affidavits and
position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court
shall render judgment.
However, should
the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts, it may, during
the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to be clarified, and
require the parties to submit affidavits or other evidence on the said matters
within ten (10) days from receipt of said order. Judgment shall be rendered
within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the last clarificatory
affidavits, or the expiration of the period for filing the same.
The court shall not resort to the clarificatory procedure to gain time for the rendition of the judgment.
[16] Nedia, v. Lavia, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1957, September 26, 2005, 471 SCRA 10, 18-19.
[17]
Sevilla v. Lindo, A.M. No. MTJ-08-1714, February 9, 2011, 642 SCRA
277, 284-285.
[18]
358 Phil. 477 (1998).
[19] Id. at 495.
[20]
Re: Judicial Audit
of the RTC, Br. 14, Zamboanga City presided over by the Hon. Ernesto R.
Gutierrez, formerly the Presiding Judge thereof, 517 Phil. 507, 519 (2006).
[21]
319 Phil. 27, 31 (1995), citing Cruz v. Basa, A.M. No. MTJ-91-598, February 9, 1993, 219 SCRA 551,
557.
[22] Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the MCTC-Dapa, Surigao del Norte, A.M. No. 03-10-250-MCTC, September 30, 2004, 439 SCRA 487, 502.
[23] As revised.