"x x x.
At the outset, the Court notes that Judge Literato’s Decision dated April 28, 2009 in Civil Case No. 632 was appealed to the RTC. Thus, any issue concerning the propriety of said decision now rests with the RTC. The present administrative case is limited to Judge Literato’s alleged disregard of the rules and delay in rendering judgment in Civil Case No. 632.
Significant herein is Section 7 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which provides:
Sec. 7. Preliminary conference; appearance of parties. – Not later than thirty (30) days after the last answer is filed, a preliminary conference shall be held. The rules on pre-trial in ordinary cases shall be applicable to the preliminary conference unless inconsistent with the provisions of this Rule.
The failure of the plaintiff to appear in the preliminary conference shall be a cause for the dismissal of his complaint. The defendant who appears in the absence of the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment on his counterclaim in accordance with Section 6 hereof. All cross-claims shall be dismissed.
If a sole defendant shall fail to appear, the plaintiff shall be entitled to judgment in accordance with Section 6 hereof. This Rule shall not apply where one of two or more defendants sued under a common cause of action who had pleaded a common defense shall appear at the preliminary conference. (Emphasis supplied.)
There is no question that Civil Case No. 632, a case for ejectment, is covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. It is equally undisputed that in summary procedure, a preliminary conference should be held not later than 30 days after the last answer has been filed. Considering that no preliminary conference at all was held in Civil Case No. 632, Judge Literato evidently failed to comply with a basic rule of procedure for which he should accordingly be held accountable.
Judge Literato’s inaction in Civil Case No. 632 for 322 days constitutes utter disregard for the summary nature of an ejectment case.
Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that a judge shall dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. In general, courts are required to decide cases submitted for decision within three months from the date of such submission.[14] With respect to cases falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure, first level courts are only allowed 30 days following the receipt of the last affidavit and position paper, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, within which to render judgment.[15]
Competence is a mark of a good judge. When a judge displays an utter lack of familiarity with the rules, he erodes the public’s confidence in the competence of our courts. It is highly imperative that judges be conversant with the law and basic legal principles. Basic legal procedures must be at the palm of a judge’s hands.[16]
There is no showing herein that Judge Literato required the parties to file their position papers. Dr. Ramie Hipe filed her Answer in Civil Case No. 632 on January 21, 2008. Dr. Ramie Hipe also filed her motion to resolve her affirmative defenses onMarch 31, 2009, which was heard and submitted for resolution by Judge Literato onJune 10, 2008. Judge Literato’s next action thereafter was to render a Decision in Civil Case No. 632 on April 28, 2009. Even if the Court counts only from June 10, 2008 (the latest incident in Civil Case No. 632), it took Judge Literato 322 days to finally dispose of the case.
Judge Literato irrefragably failed to promptly decide Civil Case No. 632 in accordance with the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Judge Literato’s inaction in Civil Case No. 632 is contrary to the rationale behind the Rule on Summary Procedure, which was precisely adopted to promote a more expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases, and to enforce the constitutional rights of litigants to the speedy disposition of cases.[17]
The Court cannot stress enough the importance of prompt and expeditious resolution of cases. The Court reiterates its pronouncement in Sanchez v. Vestil[18]:
This Court has constantly impressed upon judges the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, for it cannot be gainsaid that justice delayed is justice denied. Delay in the disposition of cases undermines the people’s faith and confidence in the judiciary. Hence, judges are enjoined to decide cases with dispatch. Their failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative sanction on them.[19]
Judge Literato explains his delay in resolving Civil Case No. 632 by citing his duties in other courts throughout Surigao del Norte. Such an excuse is unacceptable. The additional court assignments or designations imposed upon Judge Literato does not make him less liable for the delay.[20] As the Court ruled in Española v. Panay,[21] if the caseload of the judge prevents the disposition of cases within the reglementary periods, he should ask this Court for a reasonable extension of time to dispose of the cases involved. This is to avoid or dispel any suspicion that something sinister or corrupt is going on. Judge Literato never made such a request. Instead, he kept his silence and left Civil Case No. 632, an ejectment case falling under the Revised Rule for Summary Procedure, pending for nearly a year.
In sum, Judge Literato is administratively guilty of gross ignorance of the Rule on Summary Procedure and undue delay in rendering a decision.
Under Section 8(9), Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, gross ignorance of the law or procedure is classified as a serious charge. Section 11(A) of the same Rule provides that the penalty to be imposed if a respondent Judge is found guilty of a serious charge is either a fine of more than P20,000.00 but not more than P40,000.00, suspension from office without salary and other benefits for more than three but not exceeding six months, or dismissal from the service, forfeiture of all or part of the benefits as the Court may determine, and disqualification from reinstatement or appointment to any public office, including government-owned or controlled corporations.
Section 9 of Rule 140, as amended by A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, classifies undue delay in rendering a decision and violation of Supreme Court circulars as a less serious charge for which the penalty is suspension from office without salary and other benefits for one month to three months, or a fine of P10,000.00 to P20,000.00.
Section 17 of the Omnibus Rules implementing the Civil Service Law states that if the respondent Judge is found guilty of two or more charges or counts, the penalty imposed should be that corresponding to the most serious charge or counts and the rest may be considered aggravating circumstances.
The most serious of the charges against Judge Literato is his gross ignorance of the Rule on Summary Procedure, and his undue delay in deciding Civil Case No. 632 is considered an aggravating circumstance. Another aggravating circumstance is the fact that Judge Literato was previously charged and found guilty of gross inefficiency and gross negligence in A.M. No. 03-10-250-MCTC, for which he had been finedP20,000.00. [22]
However, the Court takes into consideration that aside from his regular station in MTC-Taganaan, Surigao del Norte, Judge Literato sits as acting judge in the MTC-Mainit, and the MCTCs of Dapa, Socorro; Claver, Gicaquit; Del Carmen-Numancia, San Isidro, San Benito; General Luna, Pilar; Malimono, San Francisco; Placer, Bacnag; Sta. Monica, Burgos; and Tubod, Alegria. Additionally, Judge Literato has been in the service of the judiciary for 26 years.
Given the foregoing, the penalty of fine in the amount of P30,000.00[23] is deemed commensurate with Judge Literato’s infractions.
x x x."
