ChanRobles Virtual law Library
[A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1671-MTJ.� September 5, 2005]
RECONES vs. VILLAMOR
SECOND DIVISION
Sirs/Mesdames:
Quoted hereunder, for your information, is a resolution of this Court dated SEP 5 2005.
A.M. OCA IPI No. 05-1671-MTJ (Re: Andres L. Recones vs. Hon. Daydews D. Villamor, Presiding Judge, MTCC - Branch 5, Davao City.)
For consideration is the administrative complaint dated 29 December 2004 filed by Andres L. Recones charging Judge Daydews D. Villamor with Gross Inefficiency, Knowingly Rendering Unjust Judgment and Manifest Bias and Partiality relative to Civil Case No. 16381-E-2004.
Complainant filed a complaint for Unlawful Detainer against spouses Julius and Belyn Nemiz, docketed as Civil Case No. 16381-E-2004 and was raffled to Branch 5, Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Davao City, presided by respondent Judge Villamor.
Spouses Nemiz admitted in their Answer the fact of lease, the nonpayment of monthly rentals from April 2004 to present and the monthly term of rent. After the failed mediation, respondent Judge issued an order requiring the parties to submit their respective position papers. Spouses Nemiz filed their position paper one (1) day late and served a copy to plaintiff (herein complainant) by registered mail without explanation in violation of the Rule. [1] cralaw
Complainant filed a motion to expunge defendants' position paper on the ground that it was filed out of time. Respondent Judge, however, still admitted defendants' position paper. Thereafter, the case was ordered submitted for decision.
On 19 November 2004, respondent Judge rendered a decision dismissing the case, the dispositive portion of which reads:
WHEREFORE, premises considered, the complaint is hereby ordered DISMISSED. Plaintiff is directed to pay defendant P 10,000.00 as attorney's fees.
Hence, this complaint charging respondent Judge with Gross Inefficiency, Knowingly Rendering an Unjust Judgment and Manifest Bias and Partiality.
Complainant avers that the decision was not released within the 30-day period under the Rules on Summary Procedure despite series of follow-ups made. It was only on 08 December 2004 that respondent Judge was able to release the decision dismissing the case but antedated the same to 19 November 2004 to make it appear that it was finished within the required period. Respondent Judge dismissed the complaint on the ground that no demand to vacate was made on the defendants. Also, the decision is misleading, illogical and absurd showing only patent partiality, bias and impropriety when respondent Judge ruled that there was no violation of the lease contract even though the defendants admitted that they had not paid the rent from April 2004 onward. Defendants also made improvements without the consent and against the will of the plaintiff.
In his COMMENT dated 12 February 2005, respondent Judge stated that the questioned decision was appealed by the complainant to the Regional Trial Court of Davao City. The appeal is still pending in that court.
On 27 July 2005, the Office of the Court Administrator submitted its report recommending the dismissal of the complaint on ground of prematurity, ratiocinating as follows:
In view of the pendency of the appeal, it is clear that the complainant's cause of action in this case has been, at the very least, prematurely filed and should, therefore be dismissed.
It is true that he (respondent) allowed the admission of the position papers of both parties despite some defects therein which were raised by either side. The admission thereof would not run counter to the spirit of the Rules on Summary Procedure considering that the case had already been submitted for resolution.
The filing of a position paper one (1) day late is not so grave an omission as to mandate the strict application of the rules. This is particularly true considering that the Supreme Court has repeatedly allowed a relaxed application of the rules in instances where the interest of substantial justice will be served and where the injustice to the adverse party is not commensurate to the degree of his thoughtlessness in not complying with the procedure prescribed.
Thus, for these reasons, the respondent thought it best that both position papers should be allowed admission as this would better serve the ends of justice.
The complainant did indeed include an averment in his Complaint and Position Paper that there was a verbal demand to vacate made upon the defendant, but said demand failed to comply with the substantial requirements of law. The alleged verbal demand to vacate was premised on the alleged violation of the contract of lease arising out of the renovations made by the defendant and not on any other supposed violation thereof.
Considering the fact that the Contract of Lease contained no prohibition against such renovations, said improvements were not violation of the contract and, would even prove to be beneficial to the lessor.
The complainant admitted that the complaint filed on 9 March 2004 with the Office of the Lupong Tagapamayapa was in relation to the alleged failure to pay the rentals which both parties admitted were paid up to March 31, 2004. In other words, the cause of action that underwent the required barangay conciliation process and was the subject of the demand to vacate was solely premised on the alleged unauthorized renovation and not the subsequent failure to pay rentals. For this reason, respondent opined that the demand to vacate was not based on any violation of the contract of lease, thereby negating the complainants' cause of action.
On the alleged gross inefficiency, respondent explained that the decision was prepared within the thirty (30) day period. It was already in draft form when counsel for the plaintiff came to verify about it. It was not immediately typewritten in final form because there were yet other resolutions and decisions being attended to by the Legal Researcher who was tasked to typewrite the same. There may have been some delays in the release or service thereof to the complainants' counsel but certainly such delay was never malicious nor intentional.
. . .
The pendency of the said appeal with the RTC of Davao City, renders this administrative case premature as the entry of judgment therein is a pre-requisite before we can take administrative action against respondent Judge. It is settled that it is only after the available judicial remedies have been exhausted, and the appellate tribunals have spoken with finality that respondents' administrative liability may be inquired into (Flores vs. Abesamis, 275 SCRA 302).
Finding the recommendation to be in accord with the law and facts of the case on record, the same is hereby APPROVED. The administrative complaint AGAINST Judge Daydews D. Villamor, in his capacity as MTCC Judge of Davao City, Branch 5, is DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED.
Very truly yours,
LUDICHI YASAY-NUNAG
Clerk of Court
(Sgd.) MA. LUISA L. LAUREA
Asst. Clerk of Court
Endnotes:
[1] cralaw Section 11, Rule 13 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
HERE FOR THE LATEST SUPREME COURT JURISPRUDENCE
PHILIPPINE SUPREME COURT DECISIONS
QUICK SEARCH
