546 Phil. 307
CHICO-NAZARIO, J.:
The Motion for Execution was filed by herein complainant way back 26 September 2005, after the ejectment case was finally resolved by the Supreme Court last 10 August 2005. Respondent Judge resolved the said Motion only on 11 January 2006 and the same was received by the complainant only on 11 February 2006 after almost five (5) months from the time it was filed. Notably, the resolution of the motion came a week after Mr. Ocampo filed this complaint and was mailed almost a month thereafter.Deliberating on the case, the First Division (now Third Division) adopted the findings and conclusion of the OCA.[3]
It is an elementary rule that in ejectment proceedings the decision in favor of the plaintiff is immediately executory. The plaintiff is entitled to reacquire possession of the subject property, after judgment is ruled in his favor, in order to prevent further damage to him arising from the loss of possession of the property in question. (Hualam Construction and Development Corporation v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 85466, 16 October 1992, 214 SCRA 612). While we give respondent credit for finally issuing the order for a Writ of Execution, we cannot but observe that the same could have been issued at the outset when the motion for execution was filed in accordance with the law. The fact that she finally complied with the requirements of the law is of no moment. Respondent cannot now be allowed to evade the effects of her inaction or ignorance of procedural law that give rise to this administrative complaint.
Her failure to comprehend the basic purpose of resolving the Motion for Execution in Ejectment cases promptly and expeditiously albeit one already resolved and decided by the Supreme Court constitutes gross ignorance of the law, for which she may be held administratively liable. It must be emphasized that the adoption of the Rule on Summary Procedure is part of the commitment of the judiciary to enforce the constitutional right of litigants to a speedy disposition of their cases. It was promulgated for the purpose of achieving "an expeditious and inexpensive determination of cases." Any member of the Judiciary who causes delay sought to be prevented by the Rule is sanctionable. (Velez v. Flores, A.M. No. MTJ-01-1366, 7 February 2003).[2]
5. x x x [T]he Motion for Execution was filed by the complainant on September 27, 2005 (Annex "A"). It was set for hearing on September 30, 2005. An Order was issued by the undersigned dated October 3, 2005 (Annex "B") requiring the defendant to file their comment/opposition to the Motion for Execution within ten (10) days from the date of the issuance of the said Order. On October 10, 2005, the defendant filed an "Urgent Ex-Parte Motion for Extension of Time to File Comment (Annex "C"). An Order dated October 14, 2005 was issued by the undersigned granting the defendant's motion and giving her until October 20, 2005 (Annex "D") to file her comment to herein complainant's Motion for Execution. Defendant did not comply with the Order dated October 14, 2005. Hence, the period to resolve the "Motion for Execution" of the herein complainant commenced to run from the time that the period given to the defendant has lapsed which was on October 20, 2005 and not on September 27, 2005 or the time of the filing of the Motion for Execution. The Motion for Execution was resolved and granted on January 11, 2006 (Annex "E") or eighty three (83) days after it was deemed submitted for resolution. Paragraph 1 of Section 15 of Article VIII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution states: "All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty four (24) months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve (12) months for all lower collegiate courts, and three (3) months for all other lower courts." The Constitution further states in Paragraph 2 of the said Section that: "A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself."and that therefore, the motion for execution was resolved within the reglementary period. The respondent further explained:
6. That the alleged delay between the issuance of the Order dated January 11, 2006 and its subsequent mailing on February 17, 2006 can be explained by the fact that the Court during that said period was conducting a Physical Inventory of all its cases as required (sic) Administrative Circular No. 1, January 28, 1988, and all records of the Court has to be sorted out and filed by the Court's staff and Orders that (sic) required to be sent to mail likewise needs to be sorted out.Article VIII, Section 15, par. 1 of the 1987 Constitution states:
7. That while the undersigned agrees with the complainant's claim that "the resolution of the motion is a matter of duty on his part- it is not a complicated matter as he could not anymore revised or modify the judgment," it is equally the undersigned's duty, taking note that case may still be compromised notwithstanding the finality of the decision therein, to exhaust every means to shift the attitudes of the parties from adversarial to a problem-solving opportunity to resolve their differences in ways that are productive for their lives. This principle is inculcated in the minds of today's judges by no other than our Supreme Court. Furthermore, the undersigned has to check if there is any supervening event that may render the issuance of a Writ of Execution moot and academic taking note that a considerable length of time has lapsed between the promulgation of Petition for Review and the filing of the "Motion for Execution." Prudence dictates and justice requires that a judge should hear both parties and not rely on the one-sided allegation of another.[5]
All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and, twelve (12) months for all lower collegiate courts, and three (3) months for all other lower courts.Further, Paragraph 2 of the said Section further states:
A case or matter shall be deemed submitted for decision or resolution upon the filing of the last pleading, brief, or memorandum required by the Rules of Court or by the court itself.As may be gleaned above, lower court judges are to dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within three (3) months or ninety (90) days from the filing of the last pleading, brief or memorandum.