THIRD DIVISION
SPOUSES JAIME AND
PURIFICACION MORTA,
Complainants,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1513
November 12, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE ANTONIO C.
BAGAGÑAN, MUNICIPAL
TRIAL COURT,
GUINOBATAN, ALBAY;
AND
SHERIFF DANILO O. MATIAS,
REGIONAL
TRIAL
COURT,
BRANCH 14, LIGAO, ALBAY,
Respondents.
chanroblesvirtualawlibrary
D E C I S I O N
PANGANIBAN, J.:
Unreasonable delay
in resolving motions opens a Judge to administrative sanctions.
Likewise,
a Sheriff is administratively liable for delayed implementation of a
writ
of execution and failure to render the required reports thereon. These
are necessary lessons from the time-honored principle that "justice
delayed
is justice denied."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Case and the
Facts
In their administrative
complaint[1]
dated July 26, 2001, Spouses Jaime and Purificacion Morta Sr. charged
Judge
Antonio C. Bagagñan of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of
Guinobatan,
Albay with gross ignorance of the law, incompetence, bias and delay.
They
also indicted Sheriff Danilo O. Matias of the Regional Trial Court
(RTC)
of Ligao, Albay (Branch 14) with gross ignorance of the law, negligence
and connivance with the defendants in Civil Case Nos. 481 and 482 (MTC,
Guinobatan, Albay). The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)
summarized
the factual antecedents as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"x
x x In a Complaint-Affidavit dated July 26,
2001
(with enclosures), x x
x
Spouses Jaime and Purificacion Morta, through their counsel, Atty.
Rodolfo
R. Paulino, charged Respondent Judge Antonio C. Bagagñan and
Sheriff
Danilo O. Matias with gross ignorance of the law and procedure,
incompetence,
bias and delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 481, entitled
'Jaime
Morta, Sr. and Purification Padilla vs. Jamie Occidental and Atty.
Mariano
Baranda, Jr.', for Damages with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary
Injunction,
and Civil Case No. 482 entitled 'Jaime Morta, Sr. and Purification
Padilla
vs. Jamie Occidental, Atty. Mariano Baranda, Jr. and Daniel Corral',
for
Damages with Prayer for a Writ of Preliminary Injunction.chan
robles virtual law
"Complainants, who
are
the plaintiffs in the aforementioned civil cases, alleged that on March
29, 1994, the Municipal Trial Court of Guinobatan, Albay rendered a
decision
in their favor. The decretal portion of the decision reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
'WHEREFORE,
in view of the foregoing considerations, judgment is rendered in favor
of the plaintiffs and against the defendants in both cases as follows:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
1)
Ordering
the defendants not to molest and disturb the peaceful possession of the
plaintiffs in the lands in question situated at San Rafael, Guinobatan;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
2) Condemning
the defendants
in Civil Case No. 481 to jointly and severally pay the plaintiffs the
total
amount of P8,130.00 representing the value of the coconuts, pili nuts
and
anahaw leaves and for the destroyed plants;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
3) Ordering
the defendants
in Civil Case No. 481 jointly and severally to reimburse the plaintiffs
the amount of P202.00 as legal expenses incurred in filing their suit;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
4) Condemning
the defendants
in Civil Case No. 482 jointly and severally to pay the plaintiffs the
total
amount of P9,950.00 representing the value of the coconuts and anahaw
leaves;chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
5) Ordering
the said
defendants in Civil Case No. 482 to jointly and severally reimburse the
plaintiffs the sum of P202.00 as legal expenses in filing this suit.'chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"The defendants
appealed
to the Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay. In its decision dated
August
10, 1994, the Regional Trial Court (RTC) dismissed the aforesaid cases
on the ground that the claims for damages are tenancy-related problems
which fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of the
Department
of Agrarian Reform Adjudicatory Board (DARAB). On September 9, 1994,
the
plaintiffs filed a petition for review with the Court of Appeals
assailing
the decision of the RTC. However, in its decision dated May 31, 1995,
the
Court of Appeals affirmed the lower court's ruling that the cases fall
within the original and exclusive jurisdiction of DARAB. Thereafter,
the
First Division of this Court, acting on the petition for review on
certiorari
filed by the plaintiffs, rendered its decision dated June 10, 1999 in
G.R.
No. 123417 affirming the decision of the Municipal Trial Court,
Guinobatan,
Albay in Civil Case Nos. 481 and 482 and thereby setting aside the
decision
of the Court of Appeals in CA-GR SP No. 35300 and that of the Regional
Trial Court in Civil Cases Nos. 1751 and 1752.
"They now complain
that
despite the fact that the decision of the Supreme Court in the
aforesaid
case had already become final and executory, the respondent Judge still
refused to issue a writ of possession in their favor.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Complainants
further
allege that on June 6, 2000 they filed a motion to cite Jaime
Occidental
for contempt of court. Although more than one (1) year had already
elapsed
since the motion was filed in the respondent Judge's sala, the same had
remained unresolved up to the filing of the instant complaint.
"As against the
respondent
Sheriff, the complainants aver[red] that through his ignorance,
negligence
and connivance with the defendants, he failed to execute in full the
writ
of execution that had been previously issued by the court in Civil Case
Nos. 481 and 482. Moreover, it took respondent Sheriff a long time
before
he finally submitted his Sheriff's Return of Service on the Writ of
Execution."[2]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In his Answer/Comment[3]
dated April 2, 2002, respondent judge explained that he had denied
complainants'
Motion for the issuance of a writ of possession because, by the time
Civil
Case Nos. 481 and 482 were finally decided by this Court on June 10,
1999,
they had already been ousted from the lots in question pursuant to the
Decisions in DARAB Case No. 2413 and Civil Case No. 1920. In Civil Case
No. 1920, respondent judge ordered complainants to vacate the disputed
lots. A Writ of Execution/Demolition was thereafter issued on January
29,
1998. On the other hand, the DARAB Decision, which became final and
executory
on October 27, 1998, directed them to cease and desist from disturbing
the peaceful possession of therein Petitioner Jaime Occidental. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Regarding the alleged
delay in the resolution of the Motion for Contempt filed by
complainants,
respondent judge contended that an ocular inspection and a hearing had
been conducted by his court as early as June 16, 2000, to determine if
their Motion had any basis. With the consent of their counsel, the
hearing
had to be deferred, however, pending receipt of the Sheriffs Report in
Civil Case No. 1920.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
For his part, Respondent
Sheriff Matias admitted in his Comment[4]
dated April 18, 2002, that there was delay in the full implementation
of
the Writ of Execution in Civil Case Nos. 481 and 482. Explaining that
the
delay was due to his heavy workload and thus unintentional, he begged
for
compassion from this Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Evaluation and
Recommendation
of the OCA
The OCA found that the
explanation of respondent judge for not granting the Motion for
Execution,
filed by complainants, was sufficient. According to the Court
Administrator,
the records showed that they had indeed been evicted from the lots they
were claiming when Civil Case Nos. 481 and 482 were finally decided by
the Supreme Court on June 10, 1999.[5]
Moreover, it emphasized that this Court had merely affirmed the
decision
of the MTC insofar as the award of damages was concerned.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to complainants'
Motion to Cite Occidental in Contempt, the OCA held that the delay was
due primarily to the need of the court to clarify some important
matters,
not to the negligence or partiality of respondent. Accordingly, it
recommended
that the charges against him be dismissed for lack of merit.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
On the other hand, the
OCA found that Sheriff Matias had failed to implement the Writ of
Execution
promptly and efficiently. It recommended that he be ordered to pay a
fine
of P1,000, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar
act
in the future would be dealt with more severely. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The Court's Ruling
We modify the OCA's
findings and recommended penalties, consistent with Rule 140 of the Revised
Rules of Court and the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases
in the Civil Service.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Administrative
Liability
We agree with the OCA
that respondent judge acted correctly in not issuing a writ of
execution/possession.
His action was consistent with the Decision of this Court in GR No.
123417
affirming that of the MTC as to damages. Besides, the latter's Order
directing
defendants not to molest complainants in their peaceful possession was
rendered moot when they were ousted from the disputed lots by virtue of
the final and executory judgments in Civil Case No. 1920 and DARAB Case
No. 2413. Indeed, the execution of a final judgment may be refused, as
in this case, when there has been a change in the situation of the
parties
that would make its execution inequitable.[6]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The delay in the resolution
of complainants' motion, however, is an altogether different matter.
The
Code
of Judicial Conduct enjoins trial court judges, as paragons of
justice
in the first instance, to dispose of the court's business promptly[7]
and to decide cases and motions within the required periods.[8]Section 15(1) of Article VIII of the Constitution
mandates them to do so within three months from the date of submission
for decision or final resolution. This Court, through Administrative
Circular
No. 1,[9]
also specifically requires all of them to act promptly on all motions
and
interlocutory matters pending before their courts.[10]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Hence, it is well-settled
that the unexplained failure of judges to decide cases and resolve
motions
and incidents within the reglementary period of 90 days, which is fixed
by the Constitution
and the law, renders them administratively liable.[11]
We have stressed often enough that delay in the administration of
justice
undermines the faith of the people in the judiciary, which is expected
to hear their supplications promptly. Delay reinforces in the mind of
litigants
the impression that the wheels of justice grind ever so slowly.[12]
As the time-honored principle goes, "justice delayed is justice
denied."chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
In this case, respondent
Judge never resolved the Motion, filed on June 6, 2000, to cite
Defendant
Occidental for contempt. While it is true that the former immediately
conducted
an ocular inspection of the area to determine if the Motion had any
basis,
this act served only to mitigate his infraction, but not absolve him
from
it. The Sheriff's Return of Service of the Writ of Demolition issued in
Civil Case No. 1920 would have clarified whether or not Occidental had
already been fully restored in possession. But while its absence was a
valid reason to defer action on the contempt Motion at the outset, it
was
certainly not an excuse for the prolonged inaction.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Had respondent judge
been so minded, he would have requested a copy of the Sheriff's Report,
so that he could rule on the Motion with dispatch. He has not
satisfactorily
explained his failure to do so, considering that the Writ of Demolition
issued in Civil Case No. 1920 had been fully executed as early as
February
25, 1998, and the return thereon made on March 17, 1998.[13]chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
With respect to the
charges against respondent sheriff, we agree with the OCA that he was
remiss
in his duty to implement the Writ fully in Civil Case Nos. 481 and 482.
Time and time again, we have impressed upon those tasked to implement
court
orders and processes to see to it that the final stage in the
litigation
process — the execution of judgment — be carried out promptly. They
should
exert every effort and indeed consider it their bounden duty to do so,
in order to ensure the speedy and efficient administration of justice.[14]
A decision that is left unexecuted or delayed indefinitely because of
the
sheriff's inefficiency or negligence remains an empty victory on the
part
of the prevailing party.[15]
For this reason, any inordinate delay in the execution of judgment is
truly
deplorable and cannot be countenanced by the Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
There is no mistaking
the mandatory character of the period prescribed under Section 14 of
Rule
39 of the Revised
Rules of Court on the Return of a Writ of Execution, which reads:chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
"Sec. 14.
Return
of writ of execution.- The writ of execution shall be returnable to the
court issuing it immediately after the judgment has been satisfied in
part
or in full. If the judgment cannot be satisfied in full within thirty
(30)
days after his receipt of the writ, the officer shall report to the
court
and state the reason therefor. Such writ shall continue in effect
during
the period within which the judgment may be enforced by motion. The
officer
shall make a report to the court every thirty (30) days on the
proceedings
taken thereon until the judgment is satisfied in full, or its
effectivity
expires. The returns or periodic reports shall set forth the whole of
the
proceedings taken, and shall be filed with the court and copies thereof
promptly furnished the parties." chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
A similar rule is
stated
in Administrative Circular No. 12 dated October 1, 1985, and
incorporated
in the Manual for Clerks of Court.[16]
According to this Circular, all sheriffs and deputy sheriffs shall
submit
to the judge concerned a report on actions taken on all writs and
processes
assigned to them within 10 days from receipt.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Per the records of this
case, a Writ of Execution was issued on November 22, 1999 in Civil Case
Nos. 481 and 482.[17]
Respondent Sheriffs Return of Service[18]
of that Writ was filed only on May 25, 2000, however, or six months
thereafter.
There is nothing in the records showing that he submitted before then a
periodic report on the actions he had taken on the Writ "every 30 days
from the date of receipt" as required. On the contrary, the Report
indicates
that the Writ was partially executed on December 15–28, 1999 and
January
11, 2000; and that the damages adjudged were partly paid in the amount
of P3,500 plus one unit of Karaoke machine. But it was only on May 25,
2000, that this matter was reported to the trial court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
The excuse proffered
by respondent sheriff, heavy workload, cannot absolve him from
administrative
sanctions.[19]
As an officer of the court, he should at all times show a high degree
of
professionalism in the performance of his duties.[20]
He has failed to observe that degree of dedication required of him as a
sheriff. The charge of connivance is, however, dismissed for lack of
basis.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Although the OCA recommended
that Respondent Judge Bagagñan be absolved of all charges, we
find
him guilty of undue delay[21]
in resolving a pending motion, an infraction that also constitutes a
violation
of a Court circular.[22]
Under Section 11(B) of Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, this
less
serious charge[23]
may be sanctioned by a fine of more than P10,000, but not exceeding
P20,000.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
As to Sheriff Matias,
we find him guilty of simple neglect of duty,[24]
a less grave offense under the Revised Uniform Rules on Administrative
Cases in the Civil Service. This infraction is punishable by a
suspension
of one month and one day to six months.[25]
But under the circumstances, we find it inadvisable to suspend
respondent
sheriff, considering that his work would be left unattended in his
absence.
Instead, we adopt our previous ruling in Aquino v. Lavadia[26]
imposing a fine equivalent to his one-month salary, so that he can
finally
implement the subject Writ and perform his other duties. chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
WHEREFORE, Judge Antonio
C. Bagagñan of the Municipal Trial Court of Guinobatan, Albay,
is
found guilty of unreasonable delay and is FINED P11,000 with a stern
warning
that a repetition of the same or a similar act in the future shall be
dealt
with more severely. On the other hand, Sheriff Danilo O. Matias of the
Regional Trial Court of Ligao, Albay (Branch 14), is ordered to pay a
fine
equivalent to his one-month salary, with a similar warning of stiffer
sanctions
for the same or a similar act.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
SO ORDERED.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
Puno, Sandoval-Gutierrez,
Corona and Carpio Morales, JJ.,
concur. chan
robles virtual law library
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 2–9; signed by Atty. Rodolfo R. Paulinochanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[2]
OCA Report, pp. 1–2; Rollo, pp. 117–118.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[3]
Rollo, pp. 36–41.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[4]
Id., pp. 92–95.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[5]
Morta Sr. v. Occidental, GR No. 123417, June 10, 1999.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[6]
Philippine Sinter Corporation v. Cagayan Electric Power and Light Co.,
Inc., 381 SCRA 582, April 25, 2002; citing Bachrach Corporation v.
Court
of Appeals, 357 Phil. 483, September 25, 1998.
[7]
Rule 1.02 of Canon 1 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[8]
Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. See also Sy Bang
v. Judge Mendez, 350 Phil. 524, March 6, 1998.
[9]
Dated January 28, 1988.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[10]
Paragraph 6.1 of Administrative Circular No. 1.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[11]
Lotino v. Judge Hernandez, 388 Phil. 646, June 1, 2000; Re: Cases Left
Undecided by Judge Bumanglag Jr., 365 Phil. 492, April 21, 1999; Dysico
v. Judge Dacumos, 330 Phil. 834, September 23, 1996.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[12]
Sy Bang v. Judge Mendez, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[13]
Return of Service of the Writ of Demolition in Civil Case No. 1920
dated
March 17, 1998, filed by Sheriff Angel C. Conejero, Sheriff IV of
Ligao,
Albay; rollo, p. 84.
[14]
San Juan Jr. v. Sangalang, 351 SCRA 210, February 6, 2001; Aquino v.
Lavadia,
417 Phil. 770, September 20, 2001; Mamanteo v. Magumun, 311 SCRA 259,
July
28, 1999.
[15]
Visitation Jr. v. Ediza, 414 Phil. 699, August 9, 2001; citing Jumio v.
Egay-Eviota, 231 SCRA 551, March 29, 1994.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[16]
§E(4) of Chapter VIII, now §F(17.3) of Chapter VI of the 2002
Revised Manual for Clerks of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[17]
See Order dated November 22, 1999; rollo, p. 18.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[18]
Annex "C" of the Complainant, rollo, p. 19.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[19]
Aquino v. Lavadia, supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[20]
Visitacion Jr. v. Ediza, supra; Dilan v. Dulfo, 364 Phil. 103, March
11,
1999; Vda. de Tisado v. Tablizo, 324 Phil. 1, February 20, 1996.
[21]
§9(1) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[22]
§9(4) of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[23]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[24]
Section 52 (B)(1) of Rule IV of the Revised Uniform Rules on
Administrative
Cases, CSC Resolution No. 991936.
[25]
Ibid.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred
[26]
Supra.chanrobles virtuallaw libraryred |