THIRD
DIVISION
ATTY.
JOSELITO R.
ENRIQUEZ,
Complainant,
A.
M.
No. MTJ-97-1123
October
2, 1997
-versus-
JUDGE
RUBY B.
CAMARISTA,
Respondent.
R
E S O L U
T I O N
FRANCISCO, J.:
This is an administrative
complaint charging respondent Judge Ruby B. Camarista of the
Metropolitan
Trial Court of Manila [MeTC] with gross inefficiency and/or gross
incompetence,
gross ignorance of the law and falsification of public documents, and
praying
for the dismissal from service of the latter.
Herein complainant was
the counsel for the plaintiffs in an ejectment case docketed as Civil
Case
No. 146111 CV, entitled Spouses Rolando Nicolas and Lilian M. Nicolas
vs.
Felix Napales, before Branch 2 of the MeTC of Manila. It appears from
the
records that despite the fact that the said case was submitted for
decision
on November 3, 1994, respondent rendered judgment thereon only on
October
2, 1995 or almost eleven [11] months after the case was submitted for
decision.
It is for this delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 146111 CV
that
complainant imputes gross inefficiency and/or gross incompetence to
respondent,
alleging further, that the delay could have been avoided had the
respondent
not been grossly ignorant of the Rule on Summary Procedure governing
ejectment
cases. Thus, complainant belabors respondent's actuations in ordering
the
plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 146111 CV to submit proof of certain
allegations
in their complaint for ejectment when defendants had failed to file
their
answer to the complaint in the first place. It is the complainant's
contention
that in view of defendants' failure to answer, respondent should have
applied
Section 6 of the Rule on Summary Procedure[1]
and rendered judgment on the basis of the facts alleged in the
complaint
without requiring plaintiffs to further substantiate their allegations.cralaw:red
In its memorandum dated
April 16, 1997, the Office of the Court Administrator [OCA] found that
the respondent had indeed rendered judgment well beyond the thirty [30]
day period provided for under Section 10 of the Rule on Summary
Procedure,
to wit:
Sec. 10. Rendition
of judgment.- Within thirty [30] days after receipt of the
last
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 clarificatory
affidavits
or the expiration of the period for filing the same.
The court shall not resort
to the clarificatory procedure just to gain time for the rendition of
the
judgment.[2]
The rules require courts
to decide cases submitted for decision generally within three [3]
months
from the date of such submission.[3]
With respect to cases falling under the Rule on Summary Procedure,
however,
first level courts are only allowed thirty (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.[4]
The Rule on Summary Procedure was precisely enacted to achieve an
expeditious
and inexpensive determination of cases. While the procedural
requirement
is directory it subjects the defaulting judge to administrative
sanction
for failure to observe the rule.[5]
The respondent seeks
to excuse the delay in the disposition of Civil Case No. 146111 CV by
claiming
that at the time the said case was filed in Branch 2 of the MeTC of
Manila
on October 4, 1994, she was handling two [2] salas, first, as Presiding
Judge of Branch 1 and second, as Acting Judge of Branch 2. Not only was
respondent's caseload doubled but the situation was also exacerbated by
the passage of Republic Act 7619 which took effect on April 15, 1994,
expanding
the jurisdiction of the lower courts and consequently resulting in a
considerable
increase in the number of cases filed before her salas.cralaw:red
Although respondent's
reasons do deserve some consideration from this Court, they are not
sufficient
to completely exculpate her from any administrative liability. As
correctly
pointed out by the OCA, the respondent obviously lacked an effective
and
proper program of priority in the disposition of cases assigned to her
salas. Furthermore, if respondent's caseload prevented the disposition
of cases within the reglementary period, she should have asked this
Court
for a reasonable extension of time to dispose the cases involved which
respondent unfortunately failed to do.[6]
Thus, complainant's insinuation that respondent had probably falsified
her Certificates of Service omitting therefrom the fact that she had
case
which remained undecided beyond the ninety [90] day period as mandated
in the Constitution. The records confirm the foregoing allegation as
respondent's
Certificates of Service for the months of January to September 1995,
failed
to indicate that she had a case which was submitted for decision beyond
the period required by law.cralaw:red
It has been held by
this Court that a judge who falsifies his Certificate of Service is
administratively
liable for serious misconduct and inefficiency under the Rules of Court
and likewise under the Penal Code.[7]
For it must be remembered that the Certificate of Service is not merely
a means to one's paycheck, but an instrument by which the courts can
fulfill
the Constitutional mandate of the people's right to a speedy
disposition
of cases.[8]
Finally, this Court
finds the issue involving respondent's allegedly incorrect application
of the Rule on Summary Procedure as judicial in nature and not an
appropriate
subject of this administrative proceeding.[9]
WHEREFORE, respondent
Judge Ruby B. Camarista of the MeTC of Manila is FINED P3,000.00 which
she is directed to pay within thirty (30) days from service hereof, and
ADMONISHED to be more conscientious and prompt in the performance of
her
duties. She is further WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar
acts in the future will be dealt with more severely.cralaw:red
SO ORDERED.cralaw:red
Narvasa, C.J.,
Romero, Melo and Panganiban, JJ., concur.
________________________________
Endnotes
[1]Sec. 6. Effect of Failure to Answer. Should the defendant fail to
answer the complaint within the period above provided, the court, motu
propio, or on motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be
warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint and limited to what is
prayed for therein: Provided, however, that the court may in its
discretion
reduce the amount of damages and attorney's fees claimed for being
excessive
or otherwise unconscionable. This is without prejudice to the
applicability
of Section 4, Rule 18 of the Rules of Court, if there are two or more
defendants.
[2]
The foregoing was incorporated in the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure as
Section 11 of Rule 70 on Forcible Entry and Unlawful Detainer.
[3]Section 15, Article VIII, Constitution of the Philippines; Raboca vs.
Pantanosas,
Jr., 245 SCRA 293, 295 [1995]; Re: Report on the Judicial Audit
Conducted
in the Regional Trial Court Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro
Manila,
248 SCRA 5 [1995].
[4]
Raboca vs. Pantanosas, id.; Cruz vs. Pascual, 244 SCRA 111 [1995].
[5]
Cruz vs. Pascual, id., at p. 114.
[6]
Española vs. Panay, 248 SCRA 648, 687 [1995]; Cruz vs. Basa, 218
SCRA 551 [1993].
[7]
Re: Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the Regional Trial Court
Branches 61, 134 and 147, Makati, Metro Manila, supra.
[8]
Sabitsana, Jr., vs. Villamor, 202 SCRA 435, 440 [1991].
[9]
Raboca vs. Pantanosas, supra. |