SPOUSES RICARDO and EVELYN MARCELO vs JUDGE DOMINGO PICHAY A.M. No. MTJ-13-1838; Mar 12, 2014 J. Perlas-Bernabe DOCTRINE: Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions on the defaulting judge. FACTS: The present case stemmed from an unlawful detainer case filed by complainants Spouses Marcelo against Spouses Magopoy which was pending before Judge Pichay of MeTC, Parañaque City. A Joint Decision was released by Judge Pichay ordering Spouses Magopoy to vacate and surrender the possession of the property to Spouses Marcelo. A writ of execution was issued and later implemented by Sheriff Espres, thus, Spouses Marcelo obtained the possession of the property. However, 6:00pm on the same day, Spouses Magopoy reentered the property and regained its possession. As such, Spouses Marcelo moved to cite Spouses Magopoy in contempt for disobedience to lawful court processes. In an Order by MeTC, defendants were not cited in contempt but was instead ordered to surrender the property to Spouses Marcelo within 10 days. Spouses Marcelo filed an Ex Parte Constancia because of the continued refusal of defendants to surrender the property, which prompted Judge Pichay to issue and Order directing the Sheriff to execute the eviction within 3 days. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by defendants, which was opposed by complainants. During the hearing, Spouses Magopoy were directed to file their Reply with Supplemental Motion to which they complied. However, instead of resolving the case, Judge Pichay directed Spouses Marcelo to file their comment regarding the motion within 5 days and after which the court will resolve the pending incidents. Spouses Marcelo failed to file their comment, nonetheless, Judge Pichay set the motion for hearing. Disappointed with Judge Pichay’s continuous inaction, Spouses Marcelo filed an administrative complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator charging him and Sheriff Epress with inordinate delay in the disposition of the pending incidents in relation to the implementation of the writ of execution of the decision. In defense, Judge Pichay told that the delay was due to the new arguments raised in the supplemental motion which may change the situation of the parties, hence, the execution of the decision would be inequitable. In the interest of justice and equity, Judge Pichay schedule a hearing for the Supplemental Motion which however was reset due to the request of complainant and because Judge Pichay went on a leave. OCA, through a Memorandum, recommended Judge Pichay be held administratively liable for undue delay in the resolution of the pending incidents in relation to the
execution of the decision. Moreover, a fine of 10,000 for the infraction. OCA found that Judge Pichay entertained dilatory machinations that resulted in the delay of the implementation of the writ of execution, while the case against Sheriff Epress be dismissed. ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pichay should be held administratively liable for undue delay in the resolution of the pending incidents. HELD: The Court concurs with the recommendation of OCA subject to modification regarding the penalty. The Constitution requires our courts to observe the time periods in deciding cases and resolving matters brought to their adjudication, in case of lower courts, 3 mos. from the date they are deemed submitted for decision or resolution. In consonance with that, Sec 5, Canon 6 of New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary provides that Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently fairly and with reasonable promptness. Noncompliance with the periods prescribed constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions against the defaulting judge. While trial court judges are often burdened with heavy case loads, they are given the option to, for good reasons, ask for an extension of the period within which to resolve a particular case or any pending incident therein. As observed in the case at bar, Judge Pichay failed to resolve the subject motions within the 3 month period prescribed therefor. The matter had already been submitted for Resolution but Judge Pichay continued with the proceedings by setting the motions for hearing to the effect of unreasonably delaying the execution of the subject decision. Judge Pichay did not sufficiently explain the reasons as to why he failed to resolve the matter on time, as well as why he still had to set the same for hearing and grant postponements despite the summary nature of ejectment proceedings and the ministerial nature of the subsequent issuance of a writ of execution. Pursuant to Sec 9, Rule 140 of ROC, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is considered as less serious offense which is punishable by either: (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than 1mo nor more than 3mos; or (b) a fine of more than 10,000 but not exceeding 20,000. Finding Judge Pichay administratively liable, he is thus fined in the amount of 12,000 pesos.
