Republic of the
Supreme Court
Manila
SECOND DIVISION
|
PILAR
S. TAOCO, Complainant,
- versus - JUDGE INOCENCIO B. SAGUN, JR., Presiding Judge,
Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 3, Cabanatuan City Respondent. |
A.M.
No. MTJ-12-1812 [Formerly A.M. OCA IPI No.
10-2250-MTJ] Present: CARPIO,
J., Chairperson, BRION, PEREZ,
SERENO,
and REYES, JJ. Promulgated: June
20, 2012 |
x - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - x
RESOLUTION
SERENO, J.:
On 4 March 2010, complainant filed a
verified Complaint against respondent judge for undue delay in rendering
judgment. Complainant alleged that on 6 May 2009, a case for ejectment was
filed before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) and raffled to
respondents sala. On 13 October
2009, pretrial was concluded, and the parties were directed to file their
position papers. On 23 November 2009, the plaintiff in the ejectment case filed
her position paper. As of the date of the filing of the Complaint, no position
paper had been filed by the defendant therein. Neither had any decision been
rendered by respondent on the case, in violation of the Rule on Summary
Procedure, which mandates that ejectment cases should be decided within thirty
(30) days from the submission of the position papers of the parties or upon the
lapse of the period to do so.
For his part, respondent submitted his
Comment stating, among others, that (1) the pretrial Order directing the
parties to file their position papers was only issued on 26 January 2010; (2)
delay did not cause any prejudice to the plaintiff in the ejectment case, as
the defendant had already vacated the subject property; (3) there was no
intention to delay on the part of respondent judge; and (4) a Decision had
already been rendered on 7
April 2010.
By way of reply, complainant averred
that the alleged pretrial Order dated 26 January 2010 was mailed only on 15
March 2010 and thus appeared to have been antedated.
On 14 July 2011, the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCA) issued a recommendation that respondent be found
guilty of Undue Delay in Rendering Judgment/Decision, and that he be fined ₱10,000
and warned that a repetition of the same or a similar offense would be dealt
with more severely.
We find the OCA recommendation to be appropriate,
with a modification.
Delay in case disposition is a major
culprit in the erosion of public faith and confidence in the judiciary and the
lowering of its standards. Failure to decide cases within the reglementary
period, without strong and justifiable reasons, constitutes gross inefficiency
warranting the imposition of administrative sanction on the defaulting judge.[1]
In this case, the decision was
purportedly issued on 7 April 2011, or more than four months since the last
submission of the parties position paper.
Even if one were to consider
respondent judges argument, there would still be undue delay in the resolution
of the ejectment case.
The pretrial Order was purportedly
issued on 26 January 2010, or more than three months since the pretrial. Section
8 of the Rules on Summary Procedure provides that within five days
after the termination of the preliminary conference, the court shall issue an
order stating the matters taken up therein.
Further, paragraph 8, Title I(A) of
A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, entitled Guidelines to be Observed by Trial Court Judges
and Clerks of Court in the Conduct of Pre-Trial and Use of Deposition-Discovery
Measures, mandates that a judge must issue a pretrial order within 10 days
after the termination of the pretrial. Since the ejectment case fell under the
Rules on Summary Procedure, respondent judge should have handled it with promptness
and haste. The reason for the adoption of those Rules is precisely to prevent
undue delays in the disposition of cases, an offense for which respondent judge
may be held administratively liable.
Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of
Court classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious
charge, which under Section 1(b) of the same Rule is punishable with 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 ₱10,000, but not
exceeding ₱20,000. Considering that the instant administrative charge is
only the third against respondent judge (the first has been dismissed, while
the second is still pending), and considering his relatively long tenure in the
judiciary starting in 1997, he may be reasonably meted out a penalty of ₱5,000
for being administratively liable for undue delay in rendering a decision.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, Judge
Inocencio B. Sagun, Jr., Presiding Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch
3, Cabanatuan City, is declared liable for delay in the disposition of case.
Accordingly, he is FINED ₱5,000.
Respondent is likewise WARNED that a
repetition of the same or a similar act in the future shall merit a more severe
sanction from the Court.
SO ORDERED.
MARIA
Associate Justice
WE
CONCUR:
Chairperson
ARTURO D.
BRION JOSE
Associate
Justice Associate Justice
BIENVENIDO L. REYES
Associate Justice