tamondong v pasal
October 18, 2017
A.M. No. rtj-16-2467
ATTY. EDDIE U. TAMONDONG, Petitioner vs. JUDGE EMMANUEL P. PASAL, Presiding Judge, Branch 38, Regional Trial Court, Cagayan De Oro City, Respondent
FULL TEXT
Facts:
On June 21, 2012, the heirs of Enrique Abada (Abada's heirs), represented by his wife and children, filed a case for Quieting of Title, Recovery of Possession, Annulment of Transfer Certificate of Title (TCT) No. T-33060, and Annulment of Extrajudicial Settlement of Estate with Sale,before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) of Opol, Misamis Oriental, against Atty. Tamondong's client, Henmar Development Property Inc. (Henmar)
Henmar filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TR0)2 before the RTC, docketed as Special Civil Action No. 2013- 184. The case was raffled to Branch 38, presided by Judge Pasal.
On December 23, 2013, Judge Pasal issued a Resolution3 dismissing the Petition for lack of merit,
Henmar filed a Petition for Certiorari, Prohibition, and Preliminary Injunction with Prayer for Issuance of a Temporary Restraining Order (TR0)2 before the RTC, docketed as Special Civil Action No. 2013- 184. The case was raffled to Branch 38, presided by Judge Pasal.
Henmar filed a Motion for Reconsideration 4 of the foregoing Resolution, and Abada's heirs filed their Opposition/Comment to the Motion for Reconsideration.5
In an Order6 dated February 24, 2014, Judge Pasal deemed the Motion for Reconsideration of Henmar as already submitted for resolution. However, even after more than six months, Judge Pasal had yet to resolve the said Motion.
Hence, Atty. Tamondong initiated the instant administrative complaint charging Judge Pasal with gross ignorance of the law and/or gross incompetence.
Atty. Tamondong questions Judge Pasal's failure to seasonably act on and resolve the Motion for Reconsideration of Henmar and avers that Judge Pasal's inaction on said Motion for more than six months constituted gross inefficiency and/or gross neglect of duty.
In his Comment,8 Judge Pasal invites attention to his Resolution dated December 23,.2013 in Special Civil Action No. 2013-184, which he claims to be self-explanatory as it amply cites the applicable rule, jurisprudence, and opinion of an eminent author. Judge Pasal also points out that the act Atty. Tamondong complains of, i.e., the dismissal of the Petition in Special Civil Action No. 2013-184, is judicial in nature and, in fact, Atty. Tamondong has already elevated the same before the Court ·of Appeals. Judge Pasal lastly reasons that the exercise of one's judicial discretion in accordance with law, no matter how unfavorable it might be to a party, does not constitute gross ignorance of the law.
Issue:
is respondent liable for gross incompetence?
is respondent liable for gross inefficiency?
On the charge of gross ignorance and/or gross incompetence : no
There is no merit in Atty. Tamondong's charge of gross ignorance of the law and/or gross incompetence against Judge Pasal.
Atty. Tamondong's sole basis for his charge is Judge Pasal's Resolution dated December 23, 2013 in Special Civil Action No. 2013-184 dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition which Atty. Tamondong filed on behalf of his client, Henmar. In said Resolution, Judge Pasal determined that there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the MTCC in denying the motion to dismiss of Henmar in Civil Case No. 2012-06-04. Atty. Tamondong though is adamant that the MTCC should have dismissed the complaint of Abada's heirs against Henmar in Civil Case No. 2012-06-04 on the grounds of (a) lack of jurisdiction over the person of Henmar; (b) lack of territorial jurisdiction over the subject property; and (c) lack of jurisdiction over a prescribed action.
Judge Pasal issued the Resolution dated December 23, 2013 in Special Civil Action No. 2013-184 in the exercise of his adjudicative functions, and any errors he might have committed therein cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies.13 The issues of jurisdiction being argued by Atty. Tamondong are judicial matters, which again can only be decided upon through judicial remedies. A party's recourse, if prejudiced by a judge's orders in the course of a trial, is with the proper reviewing court and not with the OCA, through an administrative complaint.14
The Court declared that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available. The acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, no matter how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith.15
On the charge of gross inefficiency and/or gross neglect of duty : yes
As for the other charge of gross inefficiency and/ or gross neglect of duty, the Court finds Judge Pasal administratively liable for undue delay in resolving the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated December 23, 2013 filed by Atty. Tamondong, on behalf of Henmar, in Special Civil Action No. 2013-184.
Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary18 mandates that "[j]udges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."
Decision-making is primordial among the many duties of judges. The speedy disposition of cases is the primary aim of the Judiciary, for only thereby may the ends of justice not be compromised and the Judiciary may be true to its commitment of ensuring to all persons the right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial. To pursue this aim, the Court, through the Rules of Court and other issuances, has fixed reglementary periods for acting on cases and matters.19
As a frontline official of the Judiciary, Judge Pasal should act with efficiency and probity at all times.20 Judge Pasal's unexplained delay in resolving the Motion for Reconsideration is inexcusable, unwarranted, and unreasonable.21 Judge Pasal failed to heed the consistent reminder of the Court for judges to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the Judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute. Judge Pasal's failure to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration within the 30-day reglementary period is not excusable and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions upon him.22
Pursuant to the latest amendments to Rule 14024 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge, for which the respondent judge shall be penalized with either (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a fine of more than Ten Thousand Pesos (₱l0,000.00), but not more than Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00).
Taking into account Judge Pasal's seven years of continuous service to the Judiciary and his subsequent, albeit delayed, resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration, the Court agrees with the OCA that the imposition of a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00) upon Judge Pasal would already suffice.
Ruling:
On the charge of gross ignorance and/or gross incompetence : no
There is no merit in Atty. Tamondong's charge of gross ignorance of the law and/or gross incompetence against Judge Pasal.
Atty. Tamondong's sole basis for his charge is Judge Pasal's Resolution dated December 23, 2013 in Special Civil Action No. 2013-184 dismissing the Petition for Certiorari and Prohibition which Atty. Tamondong filed on behalf of his client, Henmar. In said Resolution, Judge Pasal determined that there was no grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction on the part of the MTCC in denying the motion to dismiss of Henmar in Civil Case No. 2012-06-04. Atty. Tamondong though is adamant that the MTCC should have dismissed the complaint of Abada's heirs against Henmar in Civil Case No. 2012-06-04 on the grounds of (a) lack of jurisdiction over the person of Henmar; (b) lack of territorial jurisdiction over the subject property; and (c) lack of jurisdiction over a prescribed action.
Judge Pasal issued the Resolution dated December 23, 2013 in Special Civil Action No. 2013-184 in the exercise of his adjudicative functions, and any errors he might have committed therein cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings, but should instead be assailed through judicial remedies.13 The issues of jurisdiction being argued by Atty. Tamondong are judicial matters, which again can only be decided upon through judicial remedies. A party's recourse, if prejudiced by a judge's orders in the course of a trial, is with the proper reviewing court and not with the OCA, through an administrative complaint.14
The Court declared that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every act of a judge deemed aberrant or irregular where a judicial remedy exists and is available. The acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A judge cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for his official acts, no matter how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith.15
On the charge of gross inefficiency and/or gross neglect of duty : yes
As for the other charge of gross inefficiency and/ or gross neglect of duty, the Court finds Judge Pasal administratively liable for undue delay in resolving the Motion for Reconsideration of the Resolution dated December 23, 2013 filed by Atty. Tamondong, on behalf of Henmar, in Special Civil Action No. 2013-184.
Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary18 mandates that "[j]udges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."
Decision-making is primordial among the many duties of judges. The speedy disposition of cases is the primary aim of the Judiciary, for only thereby may the ends of justice not be compromised and the Judiciary may be true to its commitment of ensuring to all persons the right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial. To pursue this aim, the Court, through the Rules of Court and other issuances, has fixed reglementary periods for acting on cases and matters.19
As a frontline official of the Judiciary, Judge Pasal should act with efficiency and probity at all times.20 Judge Pasal's unexplained delay in resolving the Motion for Reconsideration is inexcusable, unwarranted, and unreasonable.21 Judge Pasal failed to heed the consistent reminder of the Court for judges to decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. Every judge should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual, and observant in the performance of his functions for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the Judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute. Judge Pasal's failure to resolve the Motion for Reconsideration within the 30-day reglementary period is not excusable and warrants the imposition of administrative sanctions upon him.22
Pursuant to the latest amendments to Rule 14024 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge, for which the respondent judge shall be penalized with either (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a fine of more than Ten Thousand Pesos (₱l0,000.00), but not more than Twenty Thousand Pesos (₱20,000.00).
Taking into account Judge Pasal's seven years of continuous service to the Judiciary and his subsequent, albeit delayed, resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration, the Court agrees with the OCA that the imposition of a fine of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00) upon Judge Pasal would already suffice.
Comments
Post a Comment