SECOND DIVISION
DORCAS
G.
PETALLAR,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
MTJ-03-1484
January 15, 2004
-versus-
JUDGE
JUANILLO M.
PULLOS, MCTC,
SAN
FRANCISCO,
SURIGAO
DEL NORTE,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
QUISUMBING, J.:
In a complaint-affidavit[1]
dated February 7, 2002, Judge Juanillo M. Pullos, former presiding
judge
of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court of San Francisco, Surigao del
Norte,
stands charged by complainant Dorcas G. Petallar of violating Canon 1,
Rule 1.02[2]
and Canon 3, Rule 3.05[3]
of the Code of Judicial Conduct; as well as Rule 140, Section 4[4]
and Rule 70, Sections 10[5]
and 11[6]
of the Rules of Court; for undue delay in rendering a decision in Case
No. 137 for Forcible Entry.
In charging respondent
judge with having violated his duty to administer justice impartially
and
without delay, Petallar averred that he was the plaintiff in said
forcible
entry case, adding (and we quote his allegations):
"2. That I filed the
complaint for Forcible Entry aforementioned in MCTC San Francisco
sometime
on (sic) March, 1999, which court is presided by Judge Juanillo M.
Pullos;
"3. That the Defendants
filed their Answer on April 8, 1999;
"4. That after preliminary
conference, we were ordered to submit our respective position papers
and
evidences;
"5. That on February
02, 2000, I, the Plaintiff submitted our position paper and evidences
and
the Defendants submitted also their position paper and evidences on the
same period;
"6. That after I submitted
our position papers and evidences together with the Defendants, I did
not
remember Judge Juanillo M. Pullos to have ordered us to submit
additional
affidavits or other evidences to clarify certain material facts;
"7. That after 30 days
after the receipt of the affidavits and position papers and the
expiration
of the period for filing at the MCTC-San Francisco, Surigao del Norte,
Judge Juanillo M. Pullos did not render judgment;
"8. That after two months
from the submission of our position papers, I often went to the court
of
Judge Pullos personally to verify if there is already a judgment;
"9. That I filed a manifestation
through my lawyer on October 15, 2000, a copy is attached as ANNEX-"A";
"10. That just to remind
Judge Juanillo M. Pullos of his sworn duty, I nonetheless compelled my
lawyer on August 3, 2001 to file a Motion for Rendition of Judgment
before
Judge Pullos which was duly received on August 6, 2001, a copy of said
Motion is attached as ANNEX "B";
"11. That I personally
asked Judge Juanillo Pullos in his court when must be the rendition of
judgment of our case and personally answered me three times on those
three
occasions, as follows:
1. ‘That he was still
studying the case,’ and he promised this to me sometime on September
2001;
2. ‘That he had already
studied the case but the form shall still be reduced in typewritten
form’
and he said this to me sometime on the 1st week of October 2001;
3. ‘That the Decision
shall be mailed’ and he said this on October 25, 2001;
"12. That as of the
filing of this Complaint, December 27, 2001, I did not receive any
judgment
in the above-entitled case;"[7]
For his part, respondent
judge in his comment, by way of 2nd Indorsement[8]
dated August 6, 2002, stated that he handed down his decision in Case
No.
137 on June 2, 2002. He pointed out that said decision is, in fact, the
subject of an appeal. Respondent submitted that the charges against him
had become moot.cralaw:red
The Office of the Court
Administrator (OCA), however, found no merit in respondent’s contention
that the administrative complaint against the latter had been mooted by
the decision he rendered in Case No. 137. The OCA observed that said
decision
was rendered out of time, in breach of Rule 70, Section 11 of the Rules
of Court, which mandates that judgment must be rendered within thirty
(30)
days after receipt of the affidavits and position papers or the
expiration
of the period for filing the same. The OCA also found respondent
omitted
to come up with a satisfactory explanation as to his failure to decide
the case within the prescribed period. Nor did he ask for an extension
of time within which to decide the case. Thus, in its report dated
February
6, 2003, the OCA held respondent liable for undue delay in rendering
judgment
in violation of the Rules of Court and recommended that he be fined the
amount of P5,000.00. It was further recommended that respondent judge
be
admonished to be more conscientious and prompt in the performance of
his
duties.cralaw:red
On March 30, 2003, respondent
retired from the judiciary.cralaw:red
After a careful perusal
of the records of this administrative matter, we find no reason to
disagree
with the findings of the OCA. Respondent indeed violated Rule 70,
Section
11 of the Rules of Court for undue delay in rendering judgment. The
records
show that the parties in Special Civil Action Case No. 137 had filed
their
respective position papers as early as February 2, 2000. Thus,
respondent
had until March 4, 2000 to render judgment. Had there been
circumstances
which prevented him from handing down his decision within the
prescribed
period, respondent should have at least requested from this Court for
an
extension of time within which to render judgment. As respondent
himself
admitted, Case No. 137 was decided only on June 2, 2002 or two (2)
years
and some three (3) months beyond the reglementary period. Moreover, he
could not even come up with an explanation for the delay.cralaw:red
We cannot overemphasize
the Court’s policy on prompt resolution of disputes. Justice delayed is
justice denied. Failure to resolve cases submitted for decision within
the period fixed by law constitutes a serious violation of Article III,
Section 169 of the Constitution.cralaw:red
The honor and integrity
of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and
correctness
of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with which disputes
are
resolved. Thus, judges must perform their official duties with utmost
diligence
if public confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. There is no
excuse
for mediocrity in the performance of judicial functions. The position
of
judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the law and the
Constitution10
in the discharge of official duties.cralaw:red
Nevertheless, we are
aware of the heavy case load of first level courts. Thus, we have, on
numerous
occasions, allowed reasonable extensions of time within which to decide
cases. But such extensions must first be sought from this Court. A
judge
cannot by himself prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that
authorized
by law. Without any order of extension granted by this Court, failure
to
decide a case within the prescribed period constitutes gross
inefficiency
that merits administrative sanction.11
The OCA recommended
that respondent judge be fined in the amount of P5,000.00 for his
failure
to decide on time Case No. 137, with admonition to be more
conscientious
and prompt in the performance of judicial duties. We agree that a fine
must be imposed, but not in the amount recommended by the OCA. Under
Rule
140, Section 4 of the Revised Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering
a decision in a case is a less serious charge that merits, under
Section
10(B) of the same Rule, either suspension from office or a fine
beginning
at P10,000.00 but below P20,000.00. This being his first administrative
case brought to our attention and there being no special circumstance
to
warrant the imposition of a higher penalty, we find it reasonable and
appropriate
to impose upon respondent a fine of P10,000.00 only. Now, considering
that
he already retired from the service, said amount ought to be deducted
from
his retirement pay and benefits.cralaw:red
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Juanillo M. Pullos, former presiding judge of the Municipal
Circuit
Trial Court of San Francisco, Surigao del Norte, is found LIABLE for
undue
delay in rendering a decision in Case No. 137, tantamount to GROSS
INEFFICIENCY.
He is hereby ORDERED to pay a FINE of P10,000.00 to be deducted from
his
retirement pay and benefits.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Puno, J., (Chairman), Austria-Martinez,
Callejo, Sr., and Tinga, JJ.,
concur.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
Rollo, pp. 1-3.
[2]
Rule 1.02. – A judge should administer justice impartially and without
delay.
[3]
Rule 3.05. – A judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and
decide cases within the required periods.
[4]
SEC. 4. Less Serious Charges. – Less serious charges include:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
1.
Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the
records
of a case;
[5]
SEC. 10. Submission of affidavits and position papers. – Within ten
(10)
days from receipt of the order mentioned in the next preceding section,
the parties shall submit the affidavits of their witnesses and other
evidence
on the factual issues defined in the order, together with their
position
papers setting forth the law and the facts relied upon by them.
[6]
SEC. 11. Period for rendition of judgment. – Within thirty (30) days
after
receipt of the affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the
period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment.
However,
should the court find it necessary to clarify certain material facts,
it
may, during the said period, issue an order specifying the matters to
be
clarified, and require the parties to submit affidavits or other
evidence
on the said matters within ten (10) days from receipt of said order.
Judgment
shall be rendered within fifteen (15) days after the receipt of the
last
affidavit or the expiration of the period for filing the same.
The
court shall not resort to the foregoing procedure just to gain time for
the rendition of the judgment.
[7]
Rollo, pp. 1-2.
[8]
Id. at 11.
[9]
SEC. 16. All persons shall have the right to a speedy disposition of
their
cases before all judicial, quasi-judicial, or administrative bodies.
[10]
ART. VIII, SEC. 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the
effectivity
of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four
months
from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by
the
Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three
months for all other lower courts.
(2)
A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution
upon
the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the
Rules
of Court or by the court itself.
(3)
Upon the expiration of the corresponding period, a certification to
this
effect signed by the Chief Justice or the presiding judge shall
forthwith
be issued and a copy thereof attached to the record of the case or
matter,
and served upon the parties. The certification shall state why a
decision
or resolution has not been rendered or issued within said period.
[11]
Saceda v. Gestopa, Jr., A.M. No. MTJ-00-1303, 13 December 2001, 372
SCRA
193, 197. |