TRINIDAD GAMBOA-ROCES vs. JUDGE RANHEL A. PEREZ
A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887, January 9, 2017
Facts:
1. Complainant claimed that she was one of the plaintiffs in Civil Case Nos. 451-M and 452-M for unlawful detainer and damages.
2. After the mediation proceedings and the Judicial Dispute Resolution proceedings failed, it was referred back to the MCTC for trial and was set for preliminary conference.
3. As a new judge was soon to be assigned in the MCTC, the preliminary conference was reset.
4. Complainant further stated that when Judge Perez was appointed and assumed office, her counsel filed two (2) separate motions for his inhibition in the two cases on the ground that she was previously involved in a legal confrontation with Judge Perez himself when he was representing his parents.
5. Her motions, however, were denied.
6. Thereafter, Civil Cases were consolidated.
7. After the preliminary conference for the two cases was held, the parties were then required to file their respective position papers. Thereafter, Judge Perez issued the Order, submitting the cases for resolution.
8. Complainant prayed that Judge Perez be found guilty of gross ignorance of the law for his failure to timely render judgment in the said cases. She claimed that despite the lapse of more than ten (10) months, Judge Perez failed to decide the cases in violation of the 30-day reglementary period within which to decide an ejectment case.
Issue:
Whether respondent is guilty of gross ignorance of the law.
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
Ruling:
Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution requires the lower courts to decide or resolve cases or matters for decision or final resolution within three (3) months from date of submission. In complaints for forcible entry and unlawful detainer as in this case, Section 10 of the Rules on Summary Procedure specifically requires that the complaint be resolved within thirty (30) days from receipt of the last affidavits and position papers. Without any order of extension granted by this Court, failure to decide even a single case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency.
In the same vein, Sections 2 and 5 of Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct enjoin the judges to devote their professional activity to judicial duties and to perform them, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. This obligation to render decision promptly is further emphasized in Administrative Circular No. 3-99 which reminds all judges to meticulously observe the periods prescribed by the Constitution for deciding cases because failure to comply with the prescribed period transgresses the parties' constitutional right to speedy disposition of their cases.
In this case, the explanation given by Judge Perez was too flimsy. His being inexperienced as a newly appointed judge and his explanation that the delay was not intended to prejudice the plaintiffs are not persuasive because it is his duty to resolve the cases within the reglementary period as mandated by law and the rules. These excuses only show his lack of diligence in discharging administrative responsibilities and professional competence in court management. A judge is expected to keep his own listing of cases and to note therein the status of each case so that they may be acted upon accordingly and without delay. He must adopt a system of record management and organize his docket in order to monitor the flow of cases for a prompt and effective dispatch of business.
The Court imposes upon Judge Perez a fine in the amount of ₱10,000.00
You can support our page by clicking any of the following links:
|
0 comments:
Post a Comment