ChanRobles Virtual law Library

[A.M. No. RTJ-00-1592.March 14, 2001]

CORREA vs. JUDGE VILLA IGNACIO

FIRST DIVISION

Gentlemen:

Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated MAR 14 2001.

A.M. No. RTJ-00-1592 (Fe Reas Correa vs. Judges Dennis Villa Ignacio.)

On September 18, 1998, a letter-complaint was filed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) by Fe Reas Correa bringing to the Court's attention the inaction of Judge Dennis Villa Ignacio, Regional Trial Court, Branch 143, Makati City to resolve her motion for reconsideration of the judgment rendered in Civil Case No. 94-1028, entitled "Fe Reas Correa vs. Jimmy G. Correa."

In said civil case, complainant Fe Reas Correa filed a case for annulment of marriage against her husband, Jimmy Correa averring that the latter contracted marriage with her when he actually had a prior valid and existing marriage with another woman, named Myma Balderama. Complainant discovered that her husband was previously married on July 17, 1987 in Cainta, Rizal when she was subpoenaed to appear for a court hearing in a bigamy case filed by Ms. Balderama against her and her husband, Jimmy Correa.

On June 30, 1997, Judge Villa Ignacio rendered a decision declaring complainant's marriage void ab initio with no award of damages, a copy of which was received by complainant's counsel on October 24, 1997. On November 07, 1997, complainant filed a motion for reconsideration praying for damages since her husband contracted marriage with her in total bad faith.

As of September 09, 1998, Judge Villa Ignacio has not yet resolved the motion for reconsideration despite several personal follow-ups and a Motion for Resolution filed on August 08, 1998.

In response to this letter-complaint, respondent Judge Villa Ignacio wrote a letter to the OCA dated March 05, 1999 requesting for time to submit his comment on Ms. Correa's complaint. He explained that his family was currently under stress due to his wife's ailment who was undergoing treatment for Stage III invasive cancer; and he was, likewise, not in the best of health, too. He assured that the delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration was not due to any improper consideration but solely due to the foregoing reason.

On April 27, 1999, the OCA granted the request for an extension of thirty [30] days to file the comment.

Apparently, the respondent judge failed to file his comment despite a First Tracer dated November 17, 1999 giving him another five [5] days more.

Thus, in a Resolution dated October 4, 2000, the Court resolved to docket the case as a regular administrative case and required the parties to manifest within ten [10] days from notice thereof if they are willing to submit the case based on the pleadings filed.

To date, neither of the parties has filed a manifestation pursuant to the Court's resolution.

From the records, it is not disputed that respondent judge committed delay in resolving complainant's motion for reconsideration in Civil Case No. 94-1028. It can not be gainsaid that such failure to act on the motion undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary which can not be countenanced. His excuse that his failure to resolve the motion for reconsideration was due to his wife's serious illness is not enough basis to exculpate him from administrative liability. At the very least, this only helps in mitigating the penalty imposable upon him. When he was hindered by his wife's ailment, it was incumbent upon him to merely ask for an extension from the Court through the OCA to ask for an additional time to decide cases and motions which he could not seasonably act upon and decide. Judges are expected to resolve motions and incidents pending before him within the reglementary period of ninety [90] days fixed by the Constitution and the law. Any delay is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. ¹ Perez v. Concepcion, 321 SCRA (1999).

IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, the Court Resolved to REPRIMAND respondent judge with the stem warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.

Very truly yours,

(Sgd.) VIRGINIA ANCHETA-SORIANO
Clerk of Court

Back to Home | Back to Main

CLICK HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE