9/5/2017 A.M. No.

MTJ-16-1887

TodayisTuesday,September05,2017

SECONDDIVISION

January9,2017

A.M.No.MTJ161887

TRINIDADGAMBOAROCES,Complainant
vs.

JUDGERANHELA.PEREZ,PresidingJudge,MunicipalCircuitTrialCourt,EnriqueMagalonaManapla,
NegrosOccidental,Respondent

DECISION

MENDOZA,J.:

Before the Court is an administrative complaint filed by Trinidad GamboaRoces (complainant) charging Judge
Ranhel A. Perez (Judge Perez), Presiding Judge, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, E.B. MagalonaManapla, Negros
Occidental(MCTC),withgrossignoranceofthelawforhisfailuretorenderjudgmentontheconsolidatedejectment
cases,docketedasCivilCaseNos.451Mand452M,withinthereglementaryperiodasprescribedbylaw.

Inhercomplaint,denominatedasPetition, 1datedNovember17,2015,complainantclaimedthatshewasoneof
the plaintiffs in Civil Case Nos. 451M and 452M for unlawful detainer and damages. After the mediation
proceedingsandtheJudicialDisputeResolutionproceedingsfailedinCivilCaseNo.451M,itwasreferredbackto
theMCTCfortrialandwassetforpreliminaryconference.AsanewjudgewassoontobeassignedintheMCTC,
thepreliminaryconferencewasresettoJanuary10,2014,byJudgeEvelynD.Arsenio,thethenactingPresiding
Judge.

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
confrontationwithJudgePerezhimselfwhenhewasrepresentinghisparents.Hermotions,however,weredenied
inseparateorders,datedMarch7,20142andMarch24,2014,3respectively.Thereafter,CivilCaseNos.451Mand
452MwereconsolidatedintheOrder,4datedMarch11,2014.Afterthepreliminaryconferenceforthetwocases
washeld,thepartieswerethenrequiredtofiletheirrespectivepositionpapers.Thereafter,JudgePerezissuedthe
Order,5datedNovember21,2014,submittingthecasesforresolution.

ComplainantprayedthatJudgePerezbefoundguiltyofgrossignoranceofthelawforhisfailuretotimelyrender
judgmentinthesaidcases.Sheclaimedthatdespitethelapseofmorethanten(10)months,JudgePerezfailedto
decidethecasesinviolationofthe30dayreglementaryperiodwithinwhichtodecideanejectmentcase.

InhisComment,6JudgePerezadmittedthatCivilCaseNos.451Mand452Mweredecidedbeyondtheprescribed
30day period and offered his deepest apologies, explaining that the delay was inadvertent and not intended to
prejudicetheplaintiffs.HeexplainedthathewasabletofinishthefinaldraftofhisdecisiononDecember1,2014,
butinhisdesiretohave"aperfectdecision,"hedidnotimmediatelyforwardthedrafttohisClerkofCourtashe
wouldstillpolishit.He,however,gotdistractedwithotherissuesandmattersintheoffice.

AccordingtoJudgePerez,itwasonlywhilepreparingthemonthlyreportforDecember2014thatherealizedhehad
notgiventheprinteddraftofthedecisioninthetwocasestotheClerkofCourt.Heexplainedthatreproducingthe
printeddraftwouldbeexpensiveconsideringthenumberofdefendantsinthecase.Healsofailedtogivethesoft
copytotheClerkofCourtastherewasnointernetconnectioninhisofficeatthetimeandhislaptopandcomputer
athomewerebeingservicedformaintenance.Thinkingthathehadalreadydecidedthecasesexceptthathehad
yettoreproduceandsendoutcopiesofthedecision,heincludedthesaidcasesasdecidedinthemonthlyreport.
Thereafter,itescapedhisattentiontofollowuponthecases.JudgePerezfurtherexplainedthathelaterdiscovered
inAugust2015thatthedecisionwasnotattachedtotherecordsofthecaseswhenherequestedtoseetherecords
whilelookingforatemplateofapretrialorder.Themailinglogbookwasalsocheckedanditwasrevealedthatno
decisionintheconsolidatedcaseshadbeenmailedsinceDecember2014.Ashecouldnolongerlocatetheprinted
draftdecisionwhichhethoughthemighthavekeptinhisdrawer,whereheusuallyplacedthescratchpapers,he
drafted the decision again. As it turned out, reproducing the number of copies for the parties took longer than
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/am_mtj-16-1887_2017.html 1/3
9/5/2017 A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887
anticipated as they were using a dot matrix printer which was placed inside the courtroom, thus, the Decision, 7
dated August 17, 2015, had not been received by complainant up until the complaint was filed on December 8,
2015.

In its Report, 8 dated September 7, 2016, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the
complaintberedocketedasaregularadministrativematterandthat"JudgePerezbefoundGUILTYofunduedelay
in rendering a decision or order and be ADMONISHED to be more mindful in the performance of his duties
particularlyinthepromptdispositionofcasespendingand/orsubmittedfordecision/resolutionbeforehiscourt,with
aSTERNWARNINGthatarepetitionofthesame,oranysimilarinfractionshallbedealtwithseverely."9

The Court agrees with the recommendation of the OCA except as to the penalty. Without a doubt, Judge Perez
failedtodecideCivilCaseNos.451Mand452Mwithinthereglementaryperiodasprescribedbylaw.Thesecases
weresubmittedfordecisiononNovember21,2014,butuptothetimeofthefilingofthiscomplaintonDecember8,
2015,ormorethanayeartherefrom,nodecisionhadbeenrendered.JudgePerezacknowledgedhislapsesand
presentedseveralexcusestojustifyhisdelay.Heapologizedandaskedforcompassionandunderstanding,citing
mainlyhisinexperienceasanewlyappointedjudgeasareasontherefor.

TheCourt'sRuling

Section15,ArticleVIIIofthe1987Constitutionrequiresthelowercourtstodecideorresolvecasesormattersfor
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
complaintberesolvedwithinthirty(30)daysfromreceiptofthelastaffidavitsandpositionpapers.Withoutanyorder
ofextensiongrantedbythisCourt,failuretodecideevenasinglecasewithintherequiredperiodconstitutesgross
inefficiency.10

Inthesamevein,Sections2and5ofCanon6oftheNewCodeofJudicialConductenjointhejudgestodevotetheir
professionalactivitytojudicialdutiesandtoperformthem,includingthedeliveryofreserveddecisions,efficiently,
fairly, and with reasonable promptness. This obligation to render decision promptly is further emphasized in
Administrative Circular No. 399 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'
constitutionalrighttospeedydispositionoftheircases.11

The Court has always reminded the judges to attend promptly to the business of the court and to decide cases
withintherequiredperiods 12forthehonorandintegrityoftheJudiciaryismeasurednotonlybythefairnessand
correctnessofthedecisionsrendered,butalsobytheefficiencywithwhichdisputesareresolved. 13Anydelayin
the disposition of cases erodes the public's faith and confidence in the Judiciary. 14 Thus, judges should give full
dedicationtotheirprimaryandfundamentaltaskofadministeringjusticeefficiently,inordertorestoreandmaintain
thepeople'sconfidenceinthecourts.15

Inthiscase,theexplanationgivenbyJudgePerezwastooflimsy.Hisbeinginexperiencedasanewlyappointed
judgeandhisexplanationthatthedelaywasnotintendedtoprejudicetheplaintiffsarenotpersuasivebecauseitis
hisdutytoresolvethecaseswithinthereglementaryperiodasmandatedbylawandtherules.Theseexcusesonly
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
dispatchofbusiness.16

UnderSections9and11,Rule140oftheRulesofCourt,asamendedbyA.M.No.01810SC, 17unduedelayin
rendering a decision is a less serious charge punishable by either (a) suspension from the service without salary
andotherbenefitsfornotlessthanonemonthnormorethanthreemonthsor(b)afineofmorethan10,000.00
butnotmorethan20,000.00.

InthecaseofSacedav.JudgeGestopa,Jr., 18therespondentjudge,afterbeingfoundguiltyofgrossinefficiency,
wasfinedintheamountofPl0,000.00forhisfailuretorenderjudgmentinacomplaintforejectmentwithinthe30
dayreglementaryperiodasrequiredbytheRulesonSummaryProcedure.Similarly,inthecaseofPetallarv.Judge
Pullos,19theCourtfoundtherespondentjudgeliableforunduedelayinrenderingadecisionandwasfinedinthe
amountof10,000.00.

Thus,followingthemandateoftheRulesofCourtandjurisprudence,theCourtimposesuponJudgePerezafinein
theamountof10,000.00.

WHEREFORE, finding respondent Judge Ranhel A. Perez, Municipal Circuit Trial Court, E.B. MagalonaManapla,
NegrosOccidental,GUILTYofunduedelayinrenderingadecision,theCourtherebyordershimtopayaFINEin
the amount of TEN THOUSAND PESOS (10,000.00), with STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or
similaroffenseshallbedealtwithmoreseverely.

SOORDERED.

JOSECATRALMENDOZA
AssociateJustice

WECONCUR:
http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/am_mtj-16-1887_2017.html 2/3
9/5/2017 A.M. No. MTJ-16-1887
ANTONIOT.CARPIO
AssociateJustice
Chairperson

DIOSDADOM.PERALTA MARVICM.V.F.LEONEN
AssociateJustice AssociateJustice

FRANCISH.JARDELEZA*
AssociateJustice

Footnotes
*
PerSpecialOrderNo.2416datedJanuary4.2017.
1
Rollo,pp.15.
2
Id.at4647.
3
Id.at4849.
4
Id.at5051.
5
Id.at59.
6
Id.at6671.
7
Id.at73100.
8
Id.at101104.
9
Id.at104.
10
Sacedav.JudgeGestopa,Jr.,423Phil.420,424(2001).
11
Cabaresv.JudgeTandinco,Jr.,675Phil.453,456(2011).
12
Canon3,Rule3.05oftheCodeofJudicialConduct.
13
OfficeoftheCourtAdministratorv.JudgeReves,566Phil.325,333(2008),citingPetallarv.JudgePullas,
464Phil.540(2004).
14
Guillasv.JudgeMunez,416Phil.198,204(2001).
15
RequestofJudgeIrmaZitaVMasamayor.RTCBr52,Taliban,BoholforextensionoftimetodecideCivil
CaseNo.0020andCriminalCaseNo.98384,374Phil.556,561(1999).
16
Cabaresv.JudgeTandinco,Jr.,675Phil.453,457(2011).
17
PromulgatedonSeptember11,2001andtookeffectonOctoberI,2001.
18
423Phil.420(2001).19464Phil.540(2004).

TheLawphilProjectArellanoLawFoundation

http://www.lawphil.net/judjuris/juri2017/jan2017/am_mtj-16-1887_2017.html 3/3