FIRST DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-20-2577. January 22, 2020.]
ATTY. MINERVA ALDABA-MORADA, complainant,vs. PRESIDING JUDGE HONORIO E. GUANLAO, JR., BRANCH 57, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, respondent.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedJanuary 22, 2020which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. RTJ-20-2577 [formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4812-RTJ] — (ATTY. MINERVA ALDABA-MORADA, complainant, versus PRESIDING JUDGE HONORIO E. GUANLAO, JR., BRANCH 57, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MAKATI CITY, respondent.) aScITE
Before the Court is a verified Complaint-Affidavit 1 dated April 2, 2018 of Atty. Minerva Aldaba-Morada (Atty. Morada), charging respondent Presiding Judge Honorio E. Guanlao, Jr. (Judge Guanlao), Branch 57, Regional Trial Court, Makati City (RTC) with gross inefficiency and negligence relative to Civil Case No. R-MKT-16-02967-SC, entitled "Atty. Minerva Aldaba-Morada vs. Danilo B. Intong, et al." 2
Atty. Morada alleged that she was appointed by former President Benigno C. Aquino III as Acting Regional Director of the Department of Tourism (DOT) in 2014. 3 However, she was replaced in 2016. 4 Thus, on November 28, 2016, she filed before the RTC of Makati City a Petition for Quo Warranto with prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary mandatory injunction against Danilo Intong (her replacement). 5 The hearing for the injunctive relief was first set on December 6, 2016, but was postponed for four times, until it was finally held on January 24, 2017. 6 Judge Guanlao then directed the parties to submit their formal offer of evidence and position papers. 7 On January 10, 2017, the respondents therein filed a Motion to Dismiss. 8 On March 12, 2017, Atty. Morada filed her Comment and/or Opposition to the said motion. 9 On June 16, 2017, Judge Guanlao issued an Order submitting the said motion for resolution. 10 On September 20, 2017, Judge Guanlao issued an Order granting the said motion. 11 Atty. Morada filed a motion for reconsideration which Judge Guanlao denied in an Order dated November 9, 2017. 12 She then appealed to the CA. 13
Atty. Morada alleged that the said Orders dated September 20, 2017 and November 9, 2017 failed to discuss the facts and legal bases. She also alleged that the Order dated September 20, 2017 was issued beyond the reglementary period of three months from the filing of the last pleading (i.e., her Comment and/or Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss) on March 21, 2017. 14 She also alleged that the Order dated June 16, 2017 was mailed only on September 26, 2017, which is six days after the issuance of the Order dated September 20, 2017. 15 Thus, she asserts that Judge Guanlao violated Sections 14 16 and 15 17 of Article VIII of the Constitution and Canons 1, 2 and 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct. 18
In a 1st Indorsement 19 dated April 12, 2018, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) required respondent Judge Guanlao to comment on the said complaint within 10 days from receipt thereof. In his Comment 20 dated June 8, 2018, respondent Judge Guanlao alleged that:
The allegations set forth in Grounds [1, 2, 5,] and 6 are closely related impugning the merit and soundness of the decision handed out by this court x x x. This allegation falls flat in its face given that on May 31, 2018, the undersigned received a copy of the Decision of the Honorable Court of Appeals affirming the questioned Orders of September 20, 2017 and November 9, 2017 issued by the undersigned (Annex "A").
xxx xxx xxx
The reality is that the undersigned ensured that the arguments and evidence of all parties were carefully considered, thoroughly assessed, and painstakingly analyzed to ensure that a fair and equitable Order is met. In the process, some delay was experienced due in large part to the heavy workload of the undersigned. Moreover, based on the information provided by the court staff in charge, mailing, for reasons of practicality is done per batch. Assuming for the sake of argument that the issuance of the order took a bit of additional time, the same does not amount to inefficiency or neglect, especially of the gross kind. 21
Atty. Morada filed a Reply 22 dated June 26, 2018, and thereafter Judge Guanlao filed a Rejoinder 23 dated July 11, 2018. In a Report 24 dated September 16, 2019, the OCA recommended that: (a) the present administrative complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter; and (b) respondent Judge Guanlao be found guilty of undue delay in resolving a motion in violation of Section 5, 25 Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct of the Philippines, 26 and thereby admonished. The OCA ratiocinated to wit:
Complainant miserably failed to establish by substantial evidence the charges of (1) failure to discuss the facts and the law on which the Orders dated 20 September 2017 and 9 November 2017 were based, and (2) lack of diligence, gross inefficiency, and partiality. A perusal of the records reveals that the culpabilities attributed to respondent Judge relate to the orders which were issued in the exercise of his adjudicative functions.
As to the charge of violating the three (3)-month reglementary period for promulgation of a decision or issuance of a resolution, records show that the last pleading in Civil Case No. R-MKT-16-02967-SC was filed on 21 March 2017. However, ample time was given by the court to complainant for the submission of her reply to the Comment and/or Opposition filed by respondents in the said case. Thus, the matter was submitted for resolution only on 16 June 2017. The order resolving the said matter was issued on 20 September 2017.
xxx xxx xxx
In Spouses Salahudin and Haguiar Eson vs. Hon. Luis P. Acosta and Atty. Soriano, Jr. [A.M. No. RTJ-19-2554, formerly OCA IPI No. 15-4417-RTJ, March 25, 2019], the Court emphasized the constitutionally prescribed three (3)-month reglementary period within which cases or matters at the trial court level must be resolved. The Court elucidates on the mandatory nature of this rule, [viz.]:
x x x. This three-month or ninety-day period is mandatory; and failure to comply can subject the judge to disciplinary action. The Court is not remiss in its duty to consistently remind the members of the Bench the need to decide cases promptly and expeditiously, on the time-honored principle that justice delayed is justice denied.
Nevertheless, despite this mandate, the Court has always been sympathetic to the plight of judges and has allowed them a certain degree of latitude and grants them a reasonable extension of time to resolve cases.
The Court further held in Spouses Salahudin that "although the reglementary period to resolve motions and other matters filed before the trial court is mandatory, judges are not barred from requesting extensions of time to resolve the same on valid and reasonable grounds."
The ninety (90)-day period within which to resolve the motion to dismiss ended on 14 September 2017, and the questioned order was issued six (6) days thereafter. We are sympathetic to respondent Judge's burden of accomplishing his judicial functions despite the heavy workload, however, while respondent Judge provided a legitimate reason for the delay, records of this case and of this Office offer no proof that he asked for extension of time to resolve the said motion. HEITAD
xxx xxx xxx
Notably, respondent Judge had compulsorily retired from the Judiciary on July 22, 2019. Nonetheless, retirement from the service does not exculpate one from administrative liability for transgressions committed as presiding judge. Accordingly, the failure on the part of the respondent Judge to ensure faithful and timely compliance with the ninety (90)-day reglementary period enshrined in Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution amounts to undue delay in rendering a decision or order which is classified as less serious charge under Section 9, Rule 140 of the 1997 Rules of Court and punishable with either suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.
However, taking into consideration his long years of service in the Judiciary and the lack of bad faith or malice considering that he resolved the motion only six (6) days after it became due, this Office finds that these circumstances justify the mitigation of respondent Judge's administrative liability. As such, we find the penalty of admonition to be warranted. 27 (citations omitted; notation and emphasis supplied)
The Court adopts the OCA's findings and recommendation. As shown above in the OCA Report, Judge Guanlao admitted in his Comment that "some delay was experienced" due to his heavy workload. As mentioned in the OCA Report, under Section 9 (1) 28 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge punishable under Section 11 (B) 29 of the same rules. The Court agrees with the OCA's recommendation that admonition is proper considering his long years of service and lack of bad faith. The Court also notes that this is his first offense.
WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to ADOPT and APPROVE the findings of fact, conclusions of law, and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator in its Report dated September 16, 2019. Respondent Presiding Judge Honorio E. Guanlao, Jr., Branch 57, Regional Trial Court, Makati City, is hereby found GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering an Order and is hereby ADMONISHED.
The instant administrative complaint against Presiding Judge Honorio E. Guanlao, Jr., is RE-DOCKETED as a regular administrative matter.
SO ORDERED." Gesmundo, J., Additional Member per Raffle dated January 20, 2020.
Very truly yours,
(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 2-11.
2.Id. at 46.
3.Id. at 4.
4.Id.
5.Id. at 3.
6.Id. at 3-4.
7.Id. at 4.
8.Id. at 12.
9.Id. at 2.
10.Id.
11.Id. at 4.
12.Id. at 14.
13.Id. at 4.
14.Id. at 2.
15.Id.
16. SECTION 14. No decision shall be rendered by any court without expressing therein clearly and distinctly the facts and the law on which it is based.
No petition for review or motion for reconsideration of a decision of the court shall be refused due course or denied without stating the legal basis therefor.
17. SECTION 15. (1) 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, unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.
(2) 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.
18.Id. at 3.
19.Id. at 19.
20.Id. at 20-23.
21.Id. at 21.
22.Id. at 38-41.
23.Id. at 42-45.
24.Id. at 46-52.
25. SECTION 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.
26. New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004.
27.Id. at 49-51.
28. SECTION 9. Less Serious Charges. — Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order x x x;
xxx xxx xxx
29. SECTION 11. Sanctions. — A. If the respondent is guilty of a serious charge, any of the following sanctions may be imposed:
xxx xxx xxx
B. If the respondent is guilty of a less serious charge, any of the following sanctions shall be imposed:
1. Suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or
2. A fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.