July 2010 - Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions
Philippine Supreme Court Resolutions > Year 2010 > July 2010 Resolutions >
[A.M. No. RTJ-10-2230 : July 28, 2010] JUANCHO DAACO VS. PRESIDING JUDGE SALVADOR Y. APURILLO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, TACLOBAN CITY:
[A.M. No. RTJ-10-2230 : July 28, 2010]
JUANCHO DAACO VS. PRESIDING JUDGE SALVADOR Y. APURILLO, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 8, TACLOBAN CITY
Sirs/Mesdames:
Please take notice that the court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 28 July 2010 which reads as follows:
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2230 (Juancho Daaco v. Presiding Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Tacloban City).-
Juancho Daaco ("Daaco") filed a complaint[1] for annulment of title against he heirs of Agustin Ba�ez and Paulita Yu before the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban, Branch 34, presided over by Judge Frisco T. Lilagan.
On April 12, 2007 Daaco filed a motion to declare defendants in default for failure to file an answer. Judge Lilagan treated the matter submitted for resolution on January 11, 2008 but, because Daaco filed an administrative complaint against him for failure to resolve his motion, Judge Lilagan inhibited himself from the case. It was re-raffled to Branch 8, presided over by respondent Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo.
The records were forwarded to Judge Apurillo's sala on July 24, 2008. On July 28, 2008 Daaco filed another motion, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, plus a manifestation that he had an unresolved motion to declare defendants in default. Since the latter motion remained unresolved, Daaco filed a verified complaint against Judge Apurillo before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for: (1) malicious delay in the administration of justice, (2) gross ignorance of the law, and (3) grave abuse of authority. The third charge stemmed from Judge Apurillo's order for Daaco to furnish the defendant Heirs of Ba�ez copies of his motion for judgment on the pleadings that they may comment on it despite the default.
In his Comment, Judge Apurillo admitted that his sala calendared Daaco's case only on August 26, 2008 although it got the records a month earlier on July 24, 2008. Judge Apurillo surmised that he needed to resolve together the motion for judgment by default and the subsequently filed motion for judgment on the pleadings. He could not, however, resolve them sooner because of Daaco's failure to file a reply to the defendants' opposition to his second motion. Further, Daaco's manifestation regarding the first motion did not ask for its resolution; he asked only that his manifestation be noted by the court.
As to the charge of grave ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority, Judge Apurillo said that even if the defendants could be regarded as already declared in default, they still enjoyed the right to be informed of the developments in the proceedings.
In his reply to the comment, Daaco argued that what he intended by his manifestation was to inform the court of the pendency of his motion relating to the default. He did not have to ask the court to resolve the same.
Upon evaluation, the OCA found Judge Apurillo liable for undue delay in resolving the motion to declare defendants in default and recommended that he be fined P2,000.00 for it with the stern warning against a repetition of the same or similar acts.
Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court adopts the OCA's findings and recommendations. While the Court understands the incessant problem of clogged dockets, it cannot close its eyes to the complaint against Judge Apurillo.[2] The Constitution sets deadlines for court actions but this Court has allowed lower courts to ask for extensions with the accompanying reason for the delay. The Court invariably grants such request.[3] Here, Judge Apurillo did not bother to ask the Court for such an extension and it took him some 11 months after receipt of the records of the case to resolve the pending incident.
The Court finds no basis, however, for the charge of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority. At the time Judge Apurillo issued his questioned order, the defendants had not yet been declared in default. Besides, the demands of due process dictate that all parties in the case be notified of and furnished with all pleadings and orders relative to it. Thus, Judge Apurillo was merely following the rules when he issued his subject order.
Undue delay is regarded as a less serious offense[4] but since this is Judge Apurillo's first transgression and since he had already disposed of Daaco's motion, the Court resolves, consistent with its ruling in Lagamon v. Judge Paderanga,[5] to impose on him a nominal fine of P2,000.00 as the OCA recommends.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo liable for undue delay in the resolution of a pending incident and imposes on him a fine of P2,000.00 with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
A.M. No. RTJ-10-2230 (Juancho Daaco v. Presiding Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo, Regional Trial Court, Branch 8, Tacloban City).-
Juancho Daaco ("Daaco") filed a complaint[1] for annulment of title against he heirs of Agustin Ba�ez and Paulita Yu before the Regional Trial Court of Tacloban, Branch 34, presided over by Judge Frisco T. Lilagan.
On April 12, 2007 Daaco filed a motion to declare defendants in default for failure to file an answer. Judge Lilagan treated the matter submitted for resolution on January 11, 2008 but, because Daaco filed an administrative complaint against him for failure to resolve his motion, Judge Lilagan inhibited himself from the case. It was re-raffled to Branch 8, presided over by respondent Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo.
The records were forwarded to Judge Apurillo's sala on July 24, 2008. On July 28, 2008 Daaco filed another motion, a motion for judgment on the pleadings, plus a manifestation that he had an unresolved motion to declare defendants in default. Since the latter motion remained unresolved, Daaco filed a verified complaint against Judge Apurillo before the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) for: (1) malicious delay in the administration of justice, (2) gross ignorance of the law, and (3) grave abuse of authority. The third charge stemmed from Judge Apurillo's order for Daaco to furnish the defendant Heirs of Ba�ez copies of his motion for judgment on the pleadings that they may comment on it despite the default.
In his Comment, Judge Apurillo admitted that his sala calendared Daaco's case only on August 26, 2008 although it got the records a month earlier on July 24, 2008. Judge Apurillo surmised that he needed to resolve together the motion for judgment by default and the subsequently filed motion for judgment on the pleadings. He could not, however, resolve them sooner because of Daaco's failure to file a reply to the defendants' opposition to his second motion. Further, Daaco's manifestation regarding the first motion did not ask for its resolution; he asked only that his manifestation be noted by the court.
As to the charge of grave ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority, Judge Apurillo said that even if the defendants could be regarded as already declared in default, they still enjoyed the right to be informed of the developments in the proceedings.
In his reply to the comment, Daaco argued that what he intended by his manifestation was to inform the court of the pendency of his motion relating to the default. He did not have to ask the court to resolve the same.
Upon evaluation, the OCA found Judge Apurillo liable for undue delay in resolving the motion to declare defendants in default and recommended that he be fined P2,000.00 for it with the stern warning against a repetition of the same or similar acts.
Considering the circumstances of the case, the Court adopts the OCA's findings and recommendations. While the Court understands the incessant problem of clogged dockets, it cannot close its eyes to the complaint against Judge Apurillo.[2] The Constitution sets deadlines for court actions but this Court has allowed lower courts to ask for extensions with the accompanying reason for the delay. The Court invariably grants such request.[3] Here, Judge Apurillo did not bother to ask the Court for such an extension and it took him some 11 months after receipt of the records of the case to resolve the pending incident.
The Court finds no basis, however, for the charge of gross ignorance of the law and grave abuse of authority. At the time Judge Apurillo issued his questioned order, the defendants had not yet been declared in default. Besides, the demands of due process dictate that all parties in the case be notified of and furnished with all pleadings and orders relative to it. Thus, Judge Apurillo was merely following the rules when he issued his subject order.
Undue delay is regarded as a less serious offense[4] but since this is Judge Apurillo's first transgression and since he had already disposed of Daaco's motion, the Court resolves, consistent with its ruling in Lagamon v. Judge Paderanga,[5] to impose on him a nominal fine of P2,000.00 as the OCA recommends.
WHEREFORE, the Court finds respondent Judge Salvador Y. Apurillo liable for undue delay in the resolution of a pending incident and imposes on him a fine of P2,000.00 with a warning that a repetition of the same or similar acts will be dealt with more severely.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] Docketed as Civil Case No. 2006-02-12.
[2] Canon 6, Section 5, New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.
[3] Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Laron, A.M. No. RTJ-04-1870, July 9, 2007, 527 SCRA 45, 54.
[4] Rule 140, Section 9 (1), as amended by Administrative Matter No. 01-8-10-SC.
[5] A.M. No. RTJ-08-2123, July 14, 2008, 558 SCRA 50, 55.
