January 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > January 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. MTJ-09-1747 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2009-MTJ] : January 11, 2010] DIEGO V. CUEVAS V, HON. AZNAR D. LINDAYAG, ASSISTING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE CITY, BULACAN:
[A.M. No. MTJ-09-1747 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2009-MTJ] : January 11, 2010]
DIEGO V. CUEVAS V, HON. AZNAR D. LINDAYAG, ASSISTING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, SAN JOSE DEL MONTE CITY, BULACAN
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated 11 January 2010:
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1747 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2009-MTJ] -(Diego V. Cuevas v, Hon. Aznar D. Lindayag, Assisting Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan).-
This is about a Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) judge's five months delay in issuing a writ of execution allegedly because of heavy-volume of work in two assignments.
The Facts and the Case
Complainant Diego V. Cuevas filed this complaint against respondent Judge Aznar D. Lindayag of the MTCC, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan, for undue delay in resolving his motion for the issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case 126-2000, an ejectment case.
Complainant Cuevas alleged that he and his wife filed the suit before the MTCC of San Jose del Monte City on June 28, 2000 yet respondent judge decided the case only on December 10, 2006, six years later. Cuevas filed a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution but respondent judge did not act on it for five months despite several follow-ups. Cuevas filed an ex parte motion praying for the issuance of the writ but to no avail.
When required to comment, respondent judge claims that he already granted the motion in question on May 5, 2008 or three days after complainant Cuevas filed the present action against him. His court eventually released the writ itself on June 2, 2008.
Respondent judge admits that he in fact incurred delay in resolving the motion but this was not intentional. He imputed the delay to his heavy caseload, brought about by his dual assignment as presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) at Pandi, Bulacan and as assisting judge of MTCC at San Jose del Monte City.
Respondent judge laments that he has no chambers of his own at his MTCC assignment and merely shares a room with court personnel. His court was understaffed and overloaded with work. Also, the Justice on Wheels Program held in the early months of 2008 at San Jose del Monte City and at Pandi, Bulacan exhausted him physically and mentally since he had to attend to the preparations himself. And he was to turn 70 years old by November 2009. Moreover, the proceedings in the case of complainant Cuevas were disrupted when the Court dismissed from the service the former presiding judge who handled the case for two years. In any event, respondent Judge apologized "for [the] infraction."
The Court cannot accept the reasons that respondent judge offers even if his tasks, like those of others in the judiciary, are heavy. To treat delays lightly, because they are a reality, and thus surrender the continuing struggle to overcome them would be an abject abandonment of every judge's sworn duty.[1] The circumstances that respondent judge cites cannot totally absolve him. It may only serve to mitigate the penalty prescribed for his gross inefficiency.[2]
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is punishable by suspension without pay and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months for a second offense or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 nor more than P20,000.00 for the first offense. But the Court has on occasions tempered the penalty when the respondent has not been previously held administratively liable; when he has no willful intent to delay the disposition of his cases;[3] and when he has a record of exemplary performance and efficiency in running his court.[4]
Here, taking into account respondent judge's length of service, the circumstance that he has not been previously held administratively liable, the absence of deliberate intent to delay the resolution of complainant's motion, and his abundant workload, the penalty of reprimand is proper.
WHEREFORE, the Court holds Assisting Judge Aznar D. Lindayag of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan, guilty of the charge and REPRIMANDS him for it. Perez, J., no part due to prior action in the Office of the Court Administrator,
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per Raffle dated 6 January 2010), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 11th day of January, 2010.
A.M. No. MTJ-09-1747 [formerly OCA IPI No. 08-2009-MTJ] -(Diego V. Cuevas v, Hon. Aznar D. Lindayag, Assisting Judge, Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose Del Monte City, Bulacan).-
This is about a Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC) judge's five months delay in issuing a writ of execution allegedly because of heavy-volume of work in two assignments.
The Facts and the Case
Complainant Diego V. Cuevas filed this complaint against respondent Judge Aznar D. Lindayag of the MTCC, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan, for undue delay in resolving his motion for the issuance of a writ of execution in Civil Case 126-2000, an ejectment case.
Complainant Cuevas alleged that he and his wife filed the suit before the MTCC of San Jose del Monte City on June 28, 2000 yet respondent judge decided the case only on December 10, 2006, six years later. Cuevas filed a motion for the issuance of the writ of execution but respondent judge did not act on it for five months despite several follow-ups. Cuevas filed an ex parte motion praying for the issuance of the writ but to no avail.
When required to comment, respondent judge claims that he already granted the motion in question on May 5, 2008 or three days after complainant Cuevas filed the present action against him. His court eventually released the writ itself on June 2, 2008.
Respondent judge admits that he in fact incurred delay in resolving the motion but this was not intentional. He imputed the delay to his heavy caseload, brought about by his dual assignment as presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) at Pandi, Bulacan and as assisting judge of MTCC at San Jose del Monte City.
Respondent judge laments that he has no chambers of his own at his MTCC assignment and merely shares a room with court personnel. His court was understaffed and overloaded with work. Also, the Justice on Wheels Program held in the early months of 2008 at San Jose del Monte City and at Pandi, Bulacan exhausted him physically and mentally since he had to attend to the preparations himself. And he was to turn 70 years old by November 2009. Moreover, the proceedings in the case of complainant Cuevas were disrupted when the Court dismissed from the service the former presiding judge who handled the case for two years. In any event, respondent Judge apologized "for [the] infraction."
The Court cannot accept the reasons that respondent judge offers even if his tasks, like those of others in the judiciary, are heavy. To treat delays lightly, because they are a reality, and thus surrender the continuing struggle to overcome them would be an abject abandonment of every judge's sworn duty.[1] The circumstances that respondent judge cites cannot totally absolve him. It may only serve to mitigate the penalty prescribed for his gross inefficiency.[2]
Under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is punishable by suspension without pay and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months for a second offense or a fine of not less than P10,000.00 nor more than P20,000.00 for the first offense. But the Court has on occasions tempered the penalty when the respondent has not been previously held administratively liable; when he has no willful intent to delay the disposition of his cases;[3] and when he has a record of exemplary performance and efficiency in running his court.[4]
Here, taking into account respondent judge's length of service, the circumstance that he has not been previously held administratively liable, the absence of deliberate intent to delay the resolution of complainant's motion, and his abundant workload, the penalty of reprimand is proper.
WHEREFORE, the Court holds Assisting Judge Aznar D. Lindayag of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, San Jose del Monte City, Bulacan, guilty of the charge and REPRIMANDS him for it. Perez, J., no part due to prior action in the Office of the Court Administrator,
SO ORDERED.
WITNESS the Honorable Antonio T. Carpio, Chairperson, Honorable Teresita J. Leonardo-De Castro (designated additional member per Raffle dated 6 January 2010), Arturo D. Brion, Mariano C. Del Castillo and Roberto A. Abad, Members, Second Division, this 11th day of January, 2010.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Section 15(1), Article VIII, 1987 Constitution of the Philippines.
[2] Dumaua v. Ramirez, A.M. No. MTJ-04-1546, July 29, 2005,465 SCRA 1, 4.
[3] Office of the Court Administrator v. Legaspi, AM. No. RTJ-05-1893, March 14, 2006, 484 SCRA 584,609-610.
[4] Chan v. Lantion, A.M. No. RTJ-05-1945, August 25, 2005, 468 SCRA 37, 46.
