La Consolacion Development Corp. v. Dadole-Ygnacio

THIRD DIVISION

[OCA IPI No. 16-4613-RTJ. April 16, 2018.]

LA CONSOLACION DEVELOPMENT CORPORATION, REPRESENTED BY CONCHITA G. GO, complainant,vs. HON. MERCEDITA G. DADOLE-YGNACIO, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 28, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], MANDAUE CITY, CEBU, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedApril 16, 2018, which reads as follows: HESIcT

"OCA IPI No. 16-4613-RTJ (La Consolacion Development Corporation, represented by Conchita G. Go v. Hon. Mercedita G. Dadole-Ygnacio, Presiding Judge, Branch 28, Regional Trial Court [RTC], Mandaue City, Cebu) — The Court NOTES the Report dated February 8, 2018 of the Office of the Court Administrator on the administrative complaint against respondent Presiding Judge Mercedita G. Dadole-Ygnacio, Branch 28, RTC, Mandaue City, Cebu, for Undue Delay in Rendering an Order, relative to Civil Case No. MAN-7222-A, entitled La Consolacion Development Corporation v. Prince Warehouse Club (Mandaue), Inc., for ejectment and damages.

This administrative matter pertains to the complaint against Judge Mercedita G. Dadole-Ygnacio (respondent), Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28 (RTC) for undue delay in rendering an order in Civil Case No. MAN-7222-A. Upon evaluation, the Office of Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the complaint be dismissed for lack of merit and the respondent be admonished to be more assiduous in the discharge of her judicial and administrative functions.

Antecedents

La Consolacion Development Corporation (complainant) filed a complaint for ejectment against Prince Warehouse Corp. (Mandaue), Inc. (PWCI) before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Mandaue City (MTCC). On January 14, 2014, the MTCC rendered judgment in favor of complainant and against PWCI, ordering the latter to immediately vacate the leased premises and to pay to complainant reasonable rent from June 1, 2013, attorney's fees and legal fees. 1

PWCI appealed the adverse decision that was raffled to respondent's court and docketed as Civil Case No. MAN-7222-A.

On May 7, 2014, complainant moved to dismiss PWCI's appeal for failure to file the appeal memorandum.

Instead of filing a comment/opposition to the motion to dismiss, PWCI filed a motion for leave of court to admit attached memorandum. In a manifestation dated June 13, 2014, complainant stated that its motion to dismiss should be resolved first.

Under order dated July, 2014, respondent as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 28 directed PWCI to file its comment or opposition to the motion to dismiss and complainant to file its comment/opposition to PWCI's motion for leave to admit the attached appeal memorandum.

On November 27, 2014, for failure of PWCI to deposit the reasonable rent of P200,000.00 per month starting February 1, 2014, complainant filed a motion for execution in accordance with Section 19, Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court. At the hearing of said motion, respondent directed PWCI's counsel to file their comment/opposition, after which the motion for execution would be submitted for resolution. PWCI filed its opposition to the motion for execution on December 22, 2014.

On February 5, 2015, complainant filed a motion to withdraw deposits for reasonable rent.

On March 12, 2015, complainant moved for the early resolution of the following pending incidents: 1) Motion to Dismiss dated May 7, 2014; 2) Motion for Leave of Court to Admit Attached Memorandum dated May 19, 2014; 3) Motion for Execution dated November 27, 2014; and 4) Motion to Withdraw (Deposits for Reasonable Rent) dated February 4, 2015.

On July 9, 2015, complainant filed a second motion for early resolution with manifestation that PCWI failed to deposit the reasonable rent with the branch clerk of court since January 2015.

On August 3, 2015, complainant filed its appellee's memorandum ad cautelam.

A third motion for early resolution was filed by complainant on November 19, 2015.

It was only on December 10, 2015 that respondent issued an omnibus order, ruling on the pending incidents, as follows:

WHEREFORE, foregoing premises considered, this Court hereby resolves:

1. DENYING the Motion for Leave of Court to Admit Attached Memorandum filed by defendant-appellant;

2. DISMISSING the instant appeal filed by the defendant-appellant for its failure to file its Memorandum on time;

3. GRANTING the Motion for Execution pending appeal filed by the plaintiff-appellee; and

4. GRANTING the Motion to Withdraw deposits for Reasonable Rent filed by the plaintiff-appellee.

The Clerks of Court of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities and the Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City are both directed to release to plaintiff-appellee the amounts of One Million Six Hundred Thirty Six Thousand Eight Pesos and 60/100 (Php1,636,008.60) under O.R. No. 0888186 dated 13 February 2014 and the amount of Two Million Two Hundred Thousand Pesos (Php2,200,000.00) under O.R. No. 6263088 dated 11 December 2014.

The Branch Clerk of Court is hereby directed to issue a Writ of Execution Pending Appeal ordering the Sheriff of this Court to execute the Decision of the Hon. Carlos Fernando, Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Branch 2, Mandaue City dated 14 January 2014.

Notify concerned parties of this Order. caITAC

SO ORDERED. 2 (boldface omitted)

PWCI filed a motion for reconsideration dated December 28, 2015. In her order dated January 6, 2016, respondent directed complainant to file its comment/opposition within ten (10) days and thereafter the motion for reconsideration will be submitted for resolution. On January 19, 2016, complainant filed its Opposition to the Motion for Reconsideration. 3

Almost four months later, on May 5, 2016, complainant moved for early resolution of PWCI's Motion for Reconsideration. 4

Since no action had been taken by the respondent on PWCI's motion for reconsideration of the Omnibus Order dated December 10, 2015, and the opposition filed by complainant, the latter filed the present administrative complaint on August 8, 2016. 5

Complainant stressed that more than five months had already lapsed but it has not received any resolution or order from respondent. Under the circumstances, respondent is clearly liable for undue delay in rendering a decision or order, in violation of this Court's rules, directives and circulars.

In her comment, 6 respondent stated that she already resolved PWCI's motion for reconsideration under order dated September 26, 2016 and apologized for the delay. She explained at length her plight, having inherited a heavy caseload and overburdened by continuous inflow of a huge number of new cases, which were compounded by a lack of court personnel. At the time the pending motion for reconsideration of the omnibus order dated December 10, 2015 was deemed submitted for her resolution, the day-to-day operations of the RTC, Branch 28, was conducted with only eight (8) court personnel to assist her instead of the required twelve (12) due to vacancies in the following positions: branch clerk, two stenographers, and a process server.

Respondent emphasized that this Court has recognized the overburdened situation of the courts of Mandaue City per Resolution of the Court En Banc in A.M. No. 14-11-393-RTC in relation to which Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez issued OCA Circular No. 61-2015 dated March 31, 2015, Re: Implementing Guidelines for the Pilot Testing of Assisting Regional Trial Courts in Mandaue City and Lapu-Lapu City, which was implemented on April 6, 2015, designating the RTCs of Cebu City as assisting courts to the overburdened second-level courts in Mandaue City and Lapu-Lapu City. Moreover, Branch 28 is also designated to hear Environmental Cases which aggravated the situation because respondent is required to conduct continuous trial on these cases.

In disposing of her heavy caseload, respondent also has to strictly observe OCA Circular No. 01-2015 which requires judges to prioritize criminal cases with detention prisoners. She resolved a total of 145 criminal cases with detention prisoners from April 2015 to October 2016, and reduced her caseload from 2,377 to 1,799, as of October 31, 2016, notwithstanding the lack of court personnel.

Respondent maintained that she exercises good faith in the discharge of her duties and honestly believes that she was not remiss in handling Civil Case No. MAN 7222-A. In fact, aware that she could not comply with the deadlines for case disposal, she sent to the OCA, through Deputy Court Administrator Jenny Lind R. Aldecoa-Delorino, several written requests for extension of time to decide cases and to resolve the pending motions, particularly those cases she inherited. Any delay in the resolution of the pending motion for reconsideration in Civil Case MAN-7222-A cannot be considered "undue" because her heavy docket undoubtedly limited her efficiency to meet her deadlines. Thus, she pleaded for compassion and understanding, and prayed for the dismissal of the present administrative complaint against her.

Recommendation of the OCA

The OCA found that respondent indeed sent several letters dated March 1, 2016, June 30, 2016, and September 30, 2016, asking for an extension of ninety (90) days to resolve the pending incidents or motions for reconsideration before her court, including Civil Case No. MAN 7222-A. Since complainant had filed its opposition to the motion for reconsideration on January 19, 2016, respondent had thirty (30) days or until February 18, 2016 within which to resolve the said motion pursuant to Section 4, Rule 37 of the Revised Rules of Court. Respondent was unable to act upon the motion for reconsideration within the said period. However, the order dated September 26, 2016 resolving with finality PWCI's motion for reconsideration was issued within the third extension of (90) days requested by the respondent. Thus, the OCA concluded that respondent had resolved PWCI's motion for reconsideration within the extended deadline.

Further, the OCA evaluated the totality of circumstances and concluded that there was no undue delay that warrants administrative sanctions against the respondent judge, thus:

More significantly, the Office finds it reasonable to set aside respondent Judge Dadole-Ygnacio's seeming delay in rendering the subject Order, taking into consideration that she candidly admitted her struggle in complying with the reglementary period set by the Rules of Court and other directives of the Supreme Court because she was besieged by a peculiarly heavy caseload. It is established in the records that when she assumed her judicial function as Presiding Judge of Branch 28, RTC, Mandaue City, Cebu, on 1 October 2013, she inherited 1,647 cases, in addition to the newly-filed cases raffled to her. By April 2015, her sala was overburdened with an extraordinarily high caseload of 2,377. This Office is aware that the RTCs of Mandaue City and Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, are overburdened by immensely huge caseloads. Hence, it issued OCA Circular No. 61-2015 dated 31 March 2015, designating the RTCs in Cebu City, Cebu, as assisting courts to the overburdened RTCs in Mandaue City and Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, It should also be noted that as Executive Judge of the RTC of Mandaue City, Cebu, respondent Judge Dadole-Ygnacio is saddled with administrative functions that demand urgent action on her part which, in turn, may hamper her efficiency to keep track of the cases raffled to her. It is likewise noteworthy that except for this sole administrative case filed against her, her stint in the judiciary remains unblemished. The totality of these circumstances suffice to exonerate her from administrative liability.

Nonetheless, this Office takes this opportunity to remind respondent Judge Dadole-Ygnacio to be more circumspect in the discharge of her judicial and administrative functions, keeping in mind that decision-making and case management are primordial among the many duties of a judge. The speedy disposition of cases is the primary aim of the judiciary, for only thereby may the ends of justice not be compromised and the judiciary may be true to its commitment of ensuring to all persons their right to a speedy, impartial, and public trial. 7

The OCA thus recommended the dismissal of the present administrative complaint against respondent who, nonetheless, should be admonished to be more assiduous in the discharge of her judicial and administrative functions. ICHDca

The Court's Ruling

The Court agrees with the findings of the OCA.

Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution, mandates that cases or matters filed with the lower courts must be decided or resolved within three months from the date they are submitted for decision or resolution.

Judges are oft-reminded of their duty to act promptly upon cases and matters pending before their courts. Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Sec. 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness. 8 (emphasis supplied)

Accordingly, this Court has laid down certain guidelines to ensure the compliance with this mandate. More particularly, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 13-87 9 provides:

3. Judges shall observe scrupulously the periods prescribed by Article VIII, Section 15 of the Constitution for the adjudication and resolution of all cases or matters submitted in their courts. Thus, all cases or matters must be decided or resolved within twelve months from date of submission by all lower collegiate courts while all other lower courts are given a period of three months to do so; x x x. (emphasis supplied)

Further, Supreme Court Administrative Circular No. 1-88 10 states:

6.1 All Presiding Judges must endeavor to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts.

Thus, all judges are duty-bound to observe scrupulously the periods prescribed in Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution and to act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters pending before their courts. Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as amended, classifies undue delay in rendering a decision and violation of Supreme Court directives as less serious charges which are punishable with the penalty of suspension from office without salary and other benefits for one month to three months, or a fine of P10,000 to P20,000.

Time and again, we have stressed the importance of reasonable promptness in relation to the administration of justice as justice delayed is justice denied. Undue delay in the disposition of cases and motions erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the judiciary and unnecessarily blemishes its stature. This is more so the case with trial judges who serve as the frontline officials of the judiciary expected to act at all times with efficiency and probity. 11

This being said, the Court, in view of the voluminous caseload of some trial court judges, generally allows for a reasonable extension of time to decide cases and the pending incidents thereof. The judge merely has to request for such extension if he, for good reasons, is unable to comply with the prescribed three-month period. 12

In this case, not only had this Court recognized the immensely huge caseloads of the RTCs of Mandaue City and Lapu-Lapu City, Cebu, and designated the RTCs of Cebu City to assist the said courts. The OCA also noted that respondent inherited 1,647 cases and with the constantly high number of newly-filed cases, her case docket reached 2,377 by April 2015. Having to struggle with a peculiarly heavy caseload and saddled with administrative functions as Executive Judge, respondent candidly admitted her lapses and humbly apologized to this Court.

The OCA likewise confirmed that respondent had sent on three occasions formal requests for extension of period within which to resolve the pending motions, which included PWCI's motion for reconsideration of the December 10, 2015 omnibus order. The OCA found that respondent had resolved PWCI's motion for reconsideration within the extended deadline. Upon evaluation of the totality of circumstances, particularly that respondent judge has an unblemished record and the present administrative complaint is the first one filed against her, the OCA concluded that there was no undue delay that warrants administrative sanctions against respondent judge.

We find the recommended dismissal of the present administrative complaint against the respondent as proper and justified. The delay in the resolution of PWCI's motion for reconsideration was sufficiently explained. Respondent's immensely huge caseload, inadequate court staff due to temporary vacancies including the branch clerk, and the continuous trial of criminal cases involving detention prisoners, not to mention respondent's additional duties as Executive Judge, were duly taken into consideration together with the circumstance that this is the first time an administrative complaint had been filed against respondent.

Clearly, respondent's failure to strictly observe the mandatory periods for rendering a decision or order, under the circumstances, does not constitute undue delay that warrants imposition of penalty and fine pursuant to the rules promulgated by this Court.

WHEREFORE, the complaint against respondent Judge Mercedita G. Dadole-Ygnacio of Regional Trial Court of Mandaue City, Branch 28 is hereby DISMISSED.

SO ORDERED."

Very truly yours,

(SGD.) WILFREDO V. LAPITANDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 33-36.

2.Id. at 115-116.

3.Id. at 122-133.

4.Id. at 134-135.

5.Id. at 1-10.

6.Id. at 152-157.

7.Id. at 454-455.

8. A.M. No. 03-05-01-SC, April 27, 2004. Adopting the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary.

9. Dated July 1, 1987.

10. Dated January 26, 1988.

11.Bancil v. Hon. Judge Reyes, 791 Phil. 401, 407 (2016); citing Matibay v. Judge Indar, 695 Phil. 617 (2012); Angelia v. Judge Grageda, 656 Phil. 570 (2011).

12.Id. at 408; citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Reyes, et al., 566 Phil. 325 (2008); Office of the Court Administrator v. Judge Javellana, 481 Phil. 315, 327 (2004).