588 Phil. 435
REYES, R.T., J.:
The culpability of respondent Judge lies on the propriety or impropriety of his acts. Respondent Judge was accused of manifest bias, partiality and neglect of duty relative to his actions in connection with Civil Case No. 1334. As a matter of policy the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action - only judicial errors tainted with fraud, dishonesty, gross ignorance, bad faith or deliberate intent to do an injustice will be administratively sanctioned. While a judge is a man subject to the frailties of other men, his office is an exalted position in the administration of justice, thus, it behooves him to act with circumspection at all times in order to promote public confidence in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.The investigating Judge found Judge Tanciongco guilty of gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency tantamount to neglect of duty relative to Civil Case No. 1334 and recommended two (2) months suspension[2-a] and a fine in the amount of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00).
Records reveal that the complainant filed her complaint for forcible entry with TRO and injunction on December 16, 2003. All cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, irrespective of the amount of damages or unpaid rentals sought to be recovered, shall be governed by the rules on summary procedure. Section 6, Rule 70 of the Revised rules of Civil Procedure provides that the defendant shall file his answer within ten (10) days from the service of the summons and his failure to answer the complaint within the said period, the court, motu proprio or motion of the plaintiff, shall render judgment as may be warranted by the facts alleged in the complaint.
Summons were issued on January 7, 2004. In their Answer, defendants Dominador and Maria Jimenez averred that they received the complaint on January 15, 2004. A close scrutiny of the Answer reveals that it was prepared on January 26, 2004, verified only on January 27, 2004 and received by the MCTC on the same date. Surely, the ten (10)-day reglementary period fixed by law had already lapsed. Complainant filed her comment with motion to strike out answer, but this was not even acted upon by respondent Judge, claiming that he was trying to settle the issues amicably between the parties, but despite his efforts, the same failed and that the complainant filed her pre-trial brief which was tantamount to abandonment of the motion to strike out answer. The filing of the pre-trial brief does not necessarily mean that the complainant is abandoning her motion to strike out answer. Respondent Judge should have acted on it just the same. Unfortunately, he chose to ignore it.
Granting for the sake of liberality that the aforementioned acts of respondent Judge are justifiable, the undersigned would like to point at respondent Judge's ignorance of the law which was manifested when he required defendants to file their answer within fifteen (15) days from receipt of the summons, considering that this case is governed by the rules on summary procedure. This fact was even argued by Atty. Lacambra, but respondent Judge was relentless in his stance. When the law is so elementary, such as the provisions of the Revised Rules of Court on the rules on summary procedure, not knowing it or to act as if one does not know it, constitutes gross ignorance of the law. Gross ignorance of the law, incompetence and inefficiency are characteristics impermissible in a judge.
Respondent Judge's leniency towards the cause of the defendants, while it may not be erroneous, transgresses the constitutional right of the complainant to a speedy disposition of her case. It is the noble office of a judge to render justice not only impartially but expeditiously as well, for delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of our people in the judiciary, lower its standards and brings it into disrepute.
On the issue of partiality and manifest bias, the rule is that mere suspicion that a judge is partial is not enough. Clear and convincing evidence to prove the charge is required. The burden to prove that respondent Judge committed the acts complained of rest on the complainant. It is complainant's asseveration that respondent Judge was protecting the defendants who are rich and influential; that some of them are townmates of the respondent judge; and they were sometimes seen together. These allegations remain as mere allegations without any evidence to support them. Complainant averred that her sister and relatives saw the respondent Judge with the defendants talking and eating in a restaurant. However, said sister and relatives were not presented to testify on that allegation. Mere allegation of partiality and bias without more cannot discharge the burden bestowed upon the complainant to prove respondent Judge's partiality and bias. Charges against any member of the judiciary must be supported at least by substantial evidence. Applying the foregoing principles to this case, the undersigned finds that the charges of the complainant against respondent Judge for partiality and bias failed to measure up to the yardstick of substantial evidence.
On the charge of neglect of duty
This case has been pending before respondent Judge's sala for so long. As stated earlier, this case was filed on December 16, 2003, yet, the preliminary conference was set only on February 1, 2005. Considering that this case is governed by the rules on summary procedure, the undersigned could not find any justifiable reason on what took respondent Judge so long to act on it. His explanations that he tried to settle the case amicably and that the parties failed to appear at the scheduled hearings are but flimsy excuses for the long delay incurred. The delay could have been avoided had he exercised more diligence and determination in disposing the case.
Complainant also pointed out that there had been several settings of the case, particularly February 5 and 13, 2004 which were not documented. No order or minutes of these hearings appear on the records of the case and respondent Judge did not offer any explanation nor rebut complainant's allegations regarding this matter.
The filing of a motion to cancel hearing by the defendants one day before the scheduled hearing was prejudicial to the complainant's cause. Said dilatory motion for postponement is a violation of Section 19 of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
On the scheduled hearing on July 21, 2004, the proceedings of said hearing are not found in the records of the case. According to the respondent Judge, they were in the possession of OIC Evelyn Roncal. Be that as it may, as an officer of the court having control and supervision over his staff, respondent Judge should organize and supervise his staff to ensure the prompt and efficient dispatch of business, as well as the observance of high standards of public service and fidelity at all times. He should adopt a system of records management, so that files are kept intact despite the temporary absence of the person primarily responsible for their custody.
When asked why he did not resolve the complainant's counsel motion to render judgment, respondent Judge averred that said motion was considered abandoned when Atty. Lacambra withdrew as counsel for the complainant. Fact is, said motion to render judgment was filed on October 8, 2004 (per registry receipt attached to it) while Atty. Lacambra's withdrawal as counsel was received by the MCTC on March 21, 2005, or around five (5) months had already lapsed. The failure of respondent Judge to act on the motion with reasonable dispatch constitutes gross inefficiency.
To recapitulate, respondent Judge was quite liberal in his dealings with defendants which greatly contributed to the delay in the disposition of this case. He cannot take refuge behind defendants' non-appearance in court. Delay in the disposition of cases not only deprives litigants of their right to speedy disposition of their cases but also tarnishes the image of the judiciary. Failure to dispose the court's business promptly within the periods prescribed by law and the rules constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants administrative sanction on the erring judge like respondent. It seems that respondent Judge developed a bad working habit, as evidenced by the resolution of the Supreme Court, Second Division, dated June 15, 2005 in A.M. No. MTJ-05-1592 (Office of the Court Administrator vs. Judge Erasto D. Tanciongco, Virgilio P. Mejia, et al. of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court, Dinalupihan-Hermosa, Bataan) wherein he was admonished for his failure to exercise due diligence in the supervision of his subordinates and to implement an effective and efficient records management system for prompt disposition of the court's business. He was also given a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar lapses in the future shall be dealt with more severely. His inhibition later in this case does not absolve him from liability
WHEREFORE, it is respectfully submitted that respondent Judge Erasto Tanciongco be found GUILTY of gross ignorance of the law and inefficiency tantamount to neglect of duty relative to Civil Case No. 1334, hence, it is respectfully recommended that he be suspended for two (2) months and be fined in the amount of P20,000.00.
Dinalupihan, Bataan, March 12, 2007.[2]