SECOND DIVISION
PASTOR SALUD,
Complainant,
A.M.
No.
RTJ-00-1594
June 20, 2003
-versus-
JUDGE FLORENTINO
M. ALUMBRES,PRESIDING
JUDGE,
REGIONAL TRIAL COURT,
BRANCH 255,
LAS
PINAS CITY,
Respondent.
R E S O L U
T I O N
QUISUMBING,
J.:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
This is an administrative
case filed by Pastor Salud[1]
against the Hon. Florentino M. Alumbres, then presiding judge of the
Regional
Trial Court (RTC) of Las Piñas City, Metro Manila, Branch 255,
for
undue delay in the resolution of Civil Case No. LP-96-300, entitled
Sps.
Eduardo and Josefina Laurito v. Sps. Pastor and Marcosa Salud.
As found by the Office
of the Court Administrator (OCA),[2]
the instant matter originated from the double sale of a parcel of land.
It appears that a certain Ricardo Forneza, Jr., and Cynthia S.
Forneza
were the original owners of a house and lot covered by Transfer
Certificate
of Title (TCT) No. (106597) T-5251-A. In a brief span of four (4) days,
the Fornezas managed to sell the same property twice. The first
sale
took place on February 8, 1990 to one Ferdinand Jimenez as evidenced by
a Deed of Sale. Then on February 12, 1990, the Fornezas executed
in favor of Maria Belen Salud and Laurina Salud, a Contract to Sell[3]
over the same house and lot.cralaw:red
The first buyer (Jimenez)
successfully caused the transfer of the title of the subject property
in
his name, as a result of which TCT No. (106597) T-5251-A was cancelled
and TCT No. T-14065 issued in his name. On June 27, 1991, Jimenez
sold the property to the spouses Eduardo and Josefina Laurito. The
Laurito
spouses then secured a new title, TCT No. T-24778, in their names.[4]
When the Laurito spouses
visited the subject property, they discovered that the spouses Pastor
and
Marcosa Salud were occupying the house and lot. Notwithstanding the
demand
made by the Lauritos, the Salud couple refused to vacate the
property.
Hence, the Lauritos filed a suit for unlawful detainer against them
before
the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Las Piñas City.[5]chanrobles virtual law library
Despite the defense
of the Salud spouses that they were buyers in good faith, the MeTC
rendered
a Decision,[6]
dated December 9, 1996, against them. The MeTC held that the
Saluds
failed to present any document to show that they were the owners of the
property.cralaw:red
On April 17, 1997, the
Salud spouses appealed and filed a memorandum pursuant to Section 7,
Rule
40[7]
of the Revised Rules of Civil Procedure. The case, docketed as
Civil
Case No. LP-96-300, was raffled to Branch 255 of the RTC of Las
Piñas
City, presided over by herein respondent. Notwithstanding the
pendency
of said appeal, on April 1, 1997,[8]
Judge Alumbres issued an Alias Writ of Execution, stating that
"judgment
is now final and executory."[9]
Thus, the Salud spouses filed a petition for certiorari before the
Court
of Appeals on April 23, 1997, with a prayer to temporarily restrain the
RTC from implementing, enforcing or otherwise executing its orders
dated
February 17, 1997 and April 1, 1997, or otherwise disturbing the status
quo.[10]
The Laurito spouses
then filed with the Court of Appeals a Motion to Declare Temporary
Restraining
Order Vacated and for the early resolution of the case. On
October
8, 1998, they also filed a Motion for Issuance of an Alias Writ of
Execution
Pending Appeal.[11]
On October 19, 1998,[12]
Pastor Salud filed a Letter Complaint[13]
with the OCA praying that the respondent judge be found
administratively
liable for delay in rendering judgment in Civil Case No. LP-96-300. The
Salud spouses claimed that the RTC had the period from May 1997 to
August
1997 to decide Civil Case No. LP-96-300, but had not resolved the
matter.
They likewise pointed to another case pending before the respondent,
where
the litigants had been waiting at least six (6) months for the court’s
judgment. The complainants herein asked the OCA to look closely at the
docket of respondent judge’s sala, as they were of the belief that
several
cases ripe for decision remained unacted upon.[14]
On October 19, 1998,
despite Salud’s opposition, the respondent judge issued an Alias Writ
of
Execution. Salud questioned the issuance of the alias writ on the
ground that said order was contrary to the respondent judge’s earlier
statement
that he would not act upon or issue any writ out of respect for the
order
of the Court of Appeals to maintain the status quo. The
respondent
judge made the statement, according to Salud despite the prayer of the
Saluds that a decision be rendered on their unlawful detainer case.[15]
On November 20, 1998,
or after more than fifteen (15) months from submission, the RTC handed
down its judgment in Civil Case No. LP-96-300. It affirmed in toto the
decision of the MeTC, which found the Saluds have failed to present a
better
title to the subject property.[16]chanrobles virtual law library
In his Comment[17]
on the instant Complaint, respondent judge does not deny that there was
a delay in the rendition of judgment. However, he sought to put the
blame
for the delay squarely on the complainant herein. According to
respondent,
after he decreed the issuance of a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal,
complainant
herein filed numerous pleadings not only before the RTC but also with
the
Court of Appeals, which sought to thwart the implementation of the writ
issued and, obviously, to harass him. Complainant likewise sought
to inhibit him from proceeding with the hearing of Civil Case No.
LP-96-300.
Respondent avers that complainant even went to the extent of charging
him
with contempt of court before the Court of Appeals. As a result,
respondent said his time was virtually used up by answering baseless
and
unwarranted pleadings filed by the complainant.[18]
Respondent points out
that despite the pendency of the administrative case against him, he
was
nevertheless able to render a decision, albeit delayed by 16 months. He
now submits that given this development, he should be exempted from and
relieved of any liability. In addition, Judge Alumbres submits
that
more than one (1) year has lapsed since the case was decided and he no
longer has any jurisdiction over Civil Case No. LP-96-300. Hence, he
should
not be ordered to explain matters no longer within his jurisdiction and
competence.[19]
Lastly, Judge Alumbres attributes the filing of the administrative case
against him to the unfavorable decision he rendered against complainant
in the unlawful detainer case. He cites complainant as "a classic
example" of a disgruntled litigant.[20]
On August 29, 2000,
the Court Administrator recommended that the respondent judge be
suspended
without pay and benefits for a period of two (2) months[21]
for delay in the disposition of a case.[22]
Said recommendation took into consideration the fact that respondent
had
previously been admonished for having decided a case beyond the
reglementary
period.cralaw:red
It is not disputed that
it took respondent judge over 16 months to render his decision in Civil
Case No. LP-96-300 after it was submitted for decision. The
Constitution[23]
mandates lower court judges to decide a case within ninety (90) days
from
its submission. Likewise, the Code of Judicial Conduct[24]
mandates judges to administer justice without delay and directs every
judge
to dispose of the court’s business promptly within the period
prescribed
by the law and the rules. We have emphasized strict observance of this
duty in order to minimize, if not totally eradicate, the twin problems
of congestion and delay that have long plagued our courts. It is an
oft-repeated
maxim that justice delayed is often justice denied. Thus, any
delay
in the administration of justice, no matter how brief, may result in
depriving
the litigant of his right to a speedy disposition of his case.
Delay
ultimately affects the image of the judiciary.[25]
Failure to comply with the mandate of the Constitution and of the Code
of Judicial Conduct constitutes serious misconduct, which is
detrimental
to the honor and integrity of a judicial office. Inability to
decide
a case despite the ample time prescribed is inexcusable, constitutes
gross
inefficiency,[26]
and warrants administrative sanction of the defaulting judge.[27]chanrobles virtual law library
Delay in the rendition
of judgments diminishes the people’s faith in our judicial system,[28]
and lowers its standards and brings it into disrepute.[29]
In the event that judges cannot comply with the deadlines prescribed by
law, they should apply for extensions of time to avoid administrative
sanctions.[30]
The Court allows a certain degree of latitude to judges and grants them
reasonable extensions of time to resolve cases upon proper application
by the judges concerned and on meritorious grounds.[31]
At the very least, respondent judge should have requested for an
extension
of time to render judgment once he knew that he could not comply with
the
prescribed 90-day period to render a judgment. In so doing,
he would have been able to apprise litigants as to the status of the
case
and the reason for the delay, if any. It would have shown his
mindfulness
of the deadlines.cralaw:red
Undue delay in rendering
a decision constitutes a less serious charge under Section 4, Rule 140[32]
of the Rules of Court, as amended. If found guilty thereof,
the judge shall be suspended from office without salary and other
benefits
for not less than one (1) month or more than three (3) months; or
imposed
a fine of more than P10,000, but not exceeding P20,000, pursuant to
Section
10,[33]
Rule 140.cralaw:red
In this instance, however,
we also have to recognize certain contributing factors for the
delay.
Among them are the observed tendencies of the litigants to resort to
harassment
tactics against the judge, as well as to overburden the court with
multiple
but unnecessary motions and related paperwork. These negative
tactics
are to be deplored. Although they do not excuse undue delay, they
certainly should mitigate the imposable penalty on the erring judge.chanrobles virtual law library
Except for the mitigating
circumstance, we are in agreement with the OCA recommendations in this
case. The record shows that this is not the first time that
respondent
has been called to account by this Court. In 1992, he was fined for
gross
partiality to a party. In 1996, he was admonished for delay in the
disposition
of a case. In 1999, he was reprimanded. Although respondent
has retired on June 3, 2001, the recommendation of the OCA that a fine
be imposed on him is still in order.cralaw:red
Worth stressing, even
after a judge has retired from the service, he may still be held
administratively
accountable for lapses and offenses committed during his
incumbency.
Although he may no longer be dismissed or suspended, fines may still be
meted out to be deducted from his retirement benefits.[34]
ACCORDINGLY, considering
all the circumstances in this case, Hon. Florentino M. Alumbres, former
presiding judge of the Regional Trial Court of Las Piñas, Branch
255, is fined FIVE THOUSAND PESOS (P5,000.00) for undue delay in
rendering
a decision in Civil Case No. LP-96-300. Said amount is hereby ORDERED
deducted
from retirement benefits of respondent.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Bellosillo, J., (Chairman),
and Callejo, Sr., JJ., concur.
Austria-Martinez, J.,
on official leave.
____________________________
Endnotes:
[1]
The name of the complainant is written interchangeably as Salud Pastor
and Pastor Salud in the records of the case.
[2]
Rollo, pp. 22-24.chanrobles virtual law library
[3]
Id. at 17.
[4]
Ibid.
[5]
Id. at 17-18.
[6]
Id. at 16-20.
[7]
Sec. 7. Procedure in the Regional Trial Court. -
(a) Upon receipt of the complete record or the record on appeal, the
clerk
of court of the Regional Trial Court shall notify the parties of such
fact.
(b) Within fifteen (15) days from such notice, it shall be the duty of
the appellant to submit a memorandum which shall briefly discuss the
errors
imputed to the lower court, a copy of which shall be furnished by him
to
the adverse party. Within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the
appellant’s
memorandum, the appellee may file his memorandum. Failure of the
appellant to file a memorandum shall be a ground for dismissal of the
appeal.chanrobles virtual law library
(c) Upon the filing of the memorandum of the appellee, or the
expiration
of the period to do so, the case shall be considered submitted for
decision.
The Regional Trial Court shall decide the case on the basis of the
entire
record of the proceedings had in the court of origin and such memoranda
as are filed.
[8]
Rollo, p. 2.chanrobles virtual law library
[9]
Ibid.
[10]
Ibid.
[11]
Id. at 22-23.chanrobles virtual law library
[12]
The typed date, 19 October 1998, was changed to 21 October 1998; See
Rollo,
p.4.
[13]
Id. at 1-4.chanrobles virtual law library
[14]
Id. at 2.
[15]
Id. at 23.
[16]
Ibid.
[17]
Rollo, p.12.
[18]
Id. at 13.
[19]
Rollo, p. 14.
[20]
Ibid.
[21]
Id. at 24.
[22]
Ibid.chanrobles virtual law library
[23]
Const. 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 of the Supreme Court, and, unless
reduced
by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts,
and
three months for all lower courts.
[24]
Code of Judicial Ethics, Canon 3, Rule 3.05.chanrobles virtual law library
Rule
3.05 - A judge shall dispose of the court’s business
promptly
and decide cases within the required periods.
[25]
Dela Cruz v. Serrano, A.M. No. RTJ-00-1582 (Formerly OCA IPI No.
98-487-RTJ),
4 September 2000, 339 SCRA 558, 561.
[26]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Noynay, A.M. No. RTJ-02-1704
(Formerly
A.M. No. 01-10-569-RTC), 18 March 2003, p. 7 citing Re: Report on the
Judicial
Audit Conducted in the RTC, Branch 68, Camiling, Tarlac, A.M. No.
97-6-182-RTC,
19 March 1999, 305 SCRA 61, 68 and Lambino v. De Vera, A.M. No.
MTJ-94-1017,
7 July 1997, 275 SCRA 60, 64.
[27]
Ibid, citing Bonifacio Law Office v. Bellosillo, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1308,
16 December 2002, p. 1; Reaport v. Mariano, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1853, 11
July
2001, 361 SCRA 1; Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in RTC,
Branches
29, 59 & 57, Libmanan, Camarines Sur, A.M. No. 98-1-11-RTC, 7
October
1999, 316 SCRA 272.
[28]
Id. at 1.chanrobles virtual law library
[29]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Joven, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1646
(Formerly
A.M. No. 00-7-321-RTC), 11 March 2003, pp. 9-10 citing Ang v. Asis,
A.M.
No. RTJ-00-1590, 15 January 2002, p. 9.
[30]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Noynay, supra, note 28.chanrobles virtual law library
[31]
Office of the Court Administrator v. Joven, supra, note 20 at 10 citing
Floro v. Pagio, A.M. No. MTJ-00-1335, 27 November 2000, 346 SCRA 1, 5
and
Gil v. Janolo, Jr., A.M. No. RTJ-00-1602, 5 December 2000, 347 SCRA 6,9.chanrobles virtual law library
[32]
SEC. 4. Less Serious Charges. - Less serious charges
include:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Undue
delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records
of a case;
Frequent
unjustified absence without leave, and habitual tardiness;
Unauthorized
practice of law;chanrobles virtual law library
Violation
of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars;
Receiving
additional or double compensation unless specifically authorized by
law;
and
Untruthful
statements in the certificate of service.chanrobles virtual law library
[33]
SEC. 10. Sanctions. - A. If the respondent is found culpable of a
serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Dismissal
from the service with forfeiture of benefits (except accrued leaves)
and
disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office
including a government-owned or controlled corporation
Suspension
for three (3) months without salary and benefits; or
A
fine not less than P20,000.00 but not more than P40,000.00.chanrobles virtual law library
B.
If the respondent is found culpable of having committed a less serious
charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
Suspension
from office without salary and other benefits for one (1) to two (2)
months
and twenty-nine (29) days; or
A
fine of not less than P10,000.00 but, not more than P19,999.00chanrobles virtual law library
C.
If the respondent is culpable of having committed a light charge, any
of
the following sanctions shall be imposed:chanroblesvirtuallawlibrary
A
fine of not less than P1,000.00 but not more than P9,999.00, and/or
Censure;chanrobles virtual law library
Reprimand;chanrobles virtual law library
Admonition
with warning.chanrobles virtual law library
[34]
Adriano v. Villanueva, A.M. No. MTJ-99-1232, 19 February 2003, p. 1. |