ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[OCA I.P. No. 04-1626-MTJ.� December 12, 2005]
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated DEC 12 2005.
OCA I.P. No. 04-1626-MTJ (Dr. Jose S. Luna vs. Judge Eduardo H. Mirafuente.)
On September 28, 2004, Jose S. Luna, now deceased, filed an administrative complaint with the Office of the Court Administrator against now retired Judge Eduardo H. Mirafuente for deliberate violation of the Rules of Court and malicious delay in the administration of justice as Acting Judge of the Municipal Trial Court (MTC) of Buenavista, Marinduque. The complaint alleged that Luna was the plaintiff in seventeen civil actions for recovery of possession of property filed in August 1996 with the MTC of Buenavista, Marinduque, which were heard jointly and deemed submitted for decision on October 1, 2002. Complainant claimed that Judge Mirafuente rendered a decision dismissing all civil actions for lack of jurisdiction only on February 20, 2003 after more than six years of litigation. Complainant moved for the reconsideration of the decision and, allegedly upon the prodding of Judge Mirafuente, for the reopening of the cases. Complainant alleged that Judge Mirafuente deliberately delayed the disposition of the cases by resolving the motion for reconsideration only five months after it was submitted for resolution, failing to resolve complainant's motion to re-open the case, ordering complainant's counsel to furnish defendant's counsel a copy of the motion, and declaring motu proprio that the motion may be subject of a comment or manifestation by defendant despite complainant's withdrawal of the motion to re-open the cases. Judge Mirafuente allegedly sat on the civil cases by refusing to resolve them until his voluntary inhibition on June 4, 2004.
The administrative complaint was referred to Judge Rodolfo Dimaano, Executive Judge of the RTC, Boac, Marinduque for investigation, report and recommendation.
The Court adopts the findings and conclusion of the investigating judge and rules that Judge Mirafuente is not guilty of deliberate violation of the Rules of Court and malicious delay in the administration of justice. As borne by the case records, the civil actions filed by complainant have been pending for five years when Judge Mirafuente's detail began in the middle of 2001. The trial of the cases, which had barely begun upon Judge Mirafuente's take-over, was finished in fourteen months.
Complainant's claim that the decision was rendered beyond the ninety-day period has no factual basis since the period is reckoned not from the filing of a motion to consider the case submitted for decision but from the trial court's determination that the case may be submitted for decision.
In respect to the alleged delay in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration and motion to re-open the case, the Court finds the same to be without basis. As submitted by complainant's counsel, the filing of the motion to re-open the case was supplemental to the motion for reconsideration. Thus, the two motions cannot be considered separately. The decision to re-open a case rests on the sole discretion of the trial judge who may also require the party defendant to submit a comment on the motion. It is truly the duty of every judge to resolve cases filed before him with good dispatch; no less than the Rules of Court commands that justice must be administered without unnecessary delay. Likewise, the Code of Judicial Conduct generally admonishes a judge to dispose of the business of his court promptly. Nevertheless, the judge must not sacrifice for expediency's sake the fundamental requirements of due process nor forget that he must conscientiously endeavor each time to seek the truth, to know and aptly apply the law, and to dispose of the controversy objectively and impartially, all to the end that justice is done to every party. [1] cralaw
WHEREFORE, the administrative case filed against retired Judge Eduardo H. Mirafuente is hereby DISMISSED.
Very truly yours,
(Sgd.) LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Young v. Pastor De Guzman, 362 Phil. 592 (1999).
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
