Newland v. Rana-Bernales

FIRST DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-20-2603. December 9, 2020.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4973-RTJ]

JEROME R. NEWLAND, complainant,vs. HON. MARITES FILOMENA B. RANA-BERNALES, PRESIDING JUDGE OF BRANCH 39, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, MISAMIS ORIENTAL, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, First Division, issued a Resolution datedDecember 9, 2020which reads as follows:

"A.M. No. RTJ-20-2603 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-4973-RTJ] (Jerome R. Newland v. Hon. Marites Filomena B. Rana-Bernales, Presiding Judge of Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental). — Before the Court is an administrative complaint 1 filed by Jerome R. Newland (complainant) against Judge Marites Filomena B. Rana-Bernales (respondent Judge), Presiding Judge of Branch 39 of the Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental in connection with Civil Case No. 2014-058, "Senior Chaplain Jerome Raymond Newland and Yvonne Newland, plaintiffs vs. Prudential Guarantee and Assurance, Inc., and Banco de Oro Unibank, Inc."

Antecedents

Sometime in October 2011, complainant and his wife purchased a house and lot in Cagayan de Oro, through a financial loan with Banco De Oro Unibank (BDO). A series of earthquakes and aftershocks hit the said province in 2012 and caused several cracks and damages to complainant's house. Thus, complainant and his family were forced to move out. In March 2014, complainant instituted a case against BDO and Prudential Guarantee Assurance, Inc., (PGAI) for breach of contract, fraud, and failure to pay insurance claims. A Motion to Dismiss 2 the said complaint was filed by BDO and it was submitted for resolution on 17 November 2015.

Respondent Judge, however, only issued an Order 3 denying BDO's motion to dismiss on 08 February 2018, or more than after two years after its submission for resolution. Moreover, the last Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) proceedings occurred in December 2015. Despite this, no further JDR was scheduled until almost three years after, or on 11 May 2018. Allegedly, this violates the Consolidated and Revised Guidelines to Implement the Expanded Coverage of Court-Annexed Mediation (CAM) and Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) which provides that JDR proceedings should not exceed sixty days for cases pending before the RTC. Hence, according to complainant, respondent Judge must be sanctioned for violation of Section 5, Canon 6 (Competence and Diligence) of the New Code of Judicial Conduct as well as Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct.

In her Comment, 4 respondent Judge claimed she had gone through "quite a number of personal problems and tragedies in the past few years." 5 Allegedly, her mother was suffering from Alzheimer's Disease during the pendency of Civil Case No. 2014-058. Eventually, her mother passed away on 13 April 2019. Another tragedy struck her life when, just five (5) weeks after, her father, who was diagnosed with unstable angina, died on 18 May 2019.

Respondent Judge cited another personal reason which contributed to the delay in the disposition of the complaint. Apparently, her husband works with the NBI and has to travel constantly. Thus, she is the only one left look after the welfare and well-being of their two children who both have delicate medical conditions. 6

Other reasons for the delay were offered by respondent Judge, such as: 1) the fire that razed the Hall of Justice to the ground; 2) the continuous trial of criminal cases that required courts to hold hearings in the morning and afternoon daily; 3) the deluge of drug cases handled by the trial courts due to the war on drugs campaign of President Rodrigo Duterte; 4) the mandatory trainings for professional development she had to attend which included a three-week program in the United States in mid-2017 and a judges' dialogue in Thailand in November 2019; 5) the voluminous records of the case between complainant, BDO and PGAI; 6) the unique defenses raised by BDO and PGAI as defendants; and 6) the withdrawal of complainant's counsel.

Evaluation of the OCA

The OCA found the complaint meritorious. It came up with the following evaluation:

"The primary issue is the delay in the resolution of BDO's motion to dismiss which was submitted for resolution in November 2015 but resolved only in February 2018. Also, the JDR supposedly ended in December 2015 and trial was supposed to follow, but no hearings were held for the next three (3) years.

Section 15 (1), Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides that all cases filed before the lower courts must be decided within three (3) months from the time they are submitted for decision. Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, which took effect on 01 June 2004, likewise enjoins judges to "perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness."

Respondent Judge cited several causes for the delay, including the 30 January 2015 fire that razed the Hall of Justice to the ground. The courts were indeed relocated and the judges were made to conduct hearings inside cramped and improvised rooms, but notably the subject case continued to be heard. In fact, she submitted for resolution BDO's motion to dismiss in November 2015 or some ten (10) months after the fire. It thus comes as a surprise that the motion was resolved only in February 2018 or nearly three (3) years after the fire.

xxx xxx xxx

With respect to respondent Judge's claim that the withdrawal of Atty. Lara-Maagad as complainant Newland's counsel added to the delay, records would show that Atty. Lara-Maagad's motion to withdraw was filed in March 2018 or nearly four (4) years after the case was first heard. Suffice it to say that the proceedings have been dragging long before Atty. Lara-Maagad filed her motion to withdraw as counsel.

It is also worth noting that when respondent Judge denied BDO's motion to dismiss on 8 February 2018, she also mentioned in her order that the "JDR has not yet been terminated" and set the same for hearing on 11 May 2018. However, during a JDR hearing in December 2015, she informed the parties that the case will proceed to trial considering that they failed to settle. This left complainant Newland with the impression that the JDR was over and formal trial was to follow. No actual hearings were held thereafter. It would even appear that the JDR had not been properly terminated.

As to the slew of domestic problems x x x which respondent Judge cited as among the reasons for the delay, this Office empathizes with respondent Judge, but given her dilemma she should have sought the Court's permission for an extension of time to resolve the motion to dismiss. 7

In view of the evaluation, the OCA recommended that this case be re-docketed as regular administrative matter. Taking into consideration that this is the first administrative infraction of respondent Judge, the latter should be fined in the amount of Ten Thousand (P10,000.00), payable within thirty (30) days from notice. This is pursuant to Section 9, Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, which classifies undue delay in rendering decision or order as a less serious charge punishable with either (1) suspension from office for not less than one (1) month nor more than three (3) months, or (2) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. 8

Ruling of the Court

We agree with the OCA that respondent Judge is liable for undue delay in rendering an order. However, We find the recommended penalty of Ten Thousand Pesos as fine too harsh under the circumstances.

Article VIII, Section 15 (1) of the Constitution requires judges of lower courts to decide cases or resolve matters within three months from the date of their submission for resolution. Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct similarly enjoins judges to dispose of their business and decide cases within the required period. 9

The foremost consideration of a judge is the administration of justice. A judge must decide cases promptly and expeditiously under the time-honored precept that justice delayed is justice denied. He should decide cases with dispatch and should be careful, punctual and observant in the performance of his functions for the delay in the disposition of cases erodes the faith and confidence of the people in the Judiciary, lowers its standards, and brings it into disrepute. 10

While the Court understands respondent's predicament, the successive tragedies she suffered and her mounting personal obligations do not excuse her from deciding a case or resolving a motion within the reglementary period provided by the rules and the Constitution. In any event, nothing precluded respondent Judge from seeking an extension of time to resolve BDO's motion to dismiss. However, no such request for extension had been received.

In imposing penalties, the Court is duty-bound to consider the presence of mitigating circumstances and aggravating circumstances. 11 In previous cases, the Court imposed lesser penalties in the presence of mitigating circumstances, consistent with precedent where we refrained from imposing the actual administrative penalties prescribed by law or regulation in the presence of mitigating factors. While this Court is duty-bound to sternly wield a corrective hand to discipline our errant employees and to weed out those who are undesirable, it also has the discretion to temper the harshness of its judgment with mercy. 12

In Bangalan vs. Judge Turgano, 13 for his undue delay in the disposition of a civil case, Judge Turgano was reprimanded, it appearing that it was his first offense. Similarly, this is the first offense committed by Judge Rana-Bernales. As such, we refrain from imposing the actual penalty prescribed by Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. A reprimand with a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely is sufficient.

In fine, for as lady justice never sleeps, so must the gallant men tasked to guard her domain. 14

WHEREFORE, the Court hereby finds respondent Judge Marites Filomena B. Rana-Bernales, Presiding Judge of Branch 39, Regional Trial Court, Misamis Oriental, GUILTY of undue delay in rendering an order in connection with Civil Case No. 2014-058. Accordingly, she is REPRIMANDED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or similar offense shall be dealt with more severely.

The complaint dated August 15, 2019 (with enclosures) of Jerome R. Newland against Presiding Judge Marites Filomena B. Rana-Bernales charging her with violation of Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct and Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct is NOTED; the motion (with enclosures) of Presiding Judge Marites Filomena B. Rana-Bernales to admit the thereto attached comment on the complaint is GRANTED and the aforesaid comment is NOTED; the letter-reply of Jerome R. Newland to the comment on the complaint is NOTED; and the Report dated November 6, 2020 of the Office of the Court Administrator, is NOTED.

SO ORDERED."

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) LIBRADA C. BUENADivision Clerk of Court

by:

MARIA TERESA B. SIBULODeputy Division Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, pp. 2-13.

2.Id. at 25-32.

3.Id. at 125-128.

4.Id. at 77-96.

5.Id. at 92.

6.Id.

7.Id. at 148-149.

8.Id. at 149-150.

9.Office of the Court Administrator v. Castillo, A.M. No. RTJ-01-1634 (Related to A.M. No. 96-12-426-RTC), 25 October 2001, 420 Phil. 228-234 (2001).

10.Office of the Court Administrator v. Arreza, A.M. No. MTJ-18-1911, 16 April 2018 [Per J. Del Castillo].

11. Section 48, Rule X of the Revised Rules on Administrative Cases in the Civil Service (RRACCS) provides that in the determination of the penalties to be imposed, mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances attendant to the commission of the offense shall be considered. The following are to be considered:

a. Physical illness;

b. Good faith;

c. Malice;

d. Time and place of offense;

e. Taking undue advantage of official position;

f. Taking advantage of subordinate;

g. Undue disclosure of confidential information;

h. Use of government property in the commission of the offense;

i. Habituality;

j. Offense is committed during office hours and within the premises of the office or building;

k. Employment of fraudulent means to commit or conceal the offense;

l. First offense;

m. Education;

n. Length of service; or

o. Other analogous circumstances.

See Office of the Court Administrator v. Retired Judge Pablo R. Chavez, A.M. No. RTJ-10-2219, 01 August 2017 [Per Curiam].

12.Id.

13. A.M. No. RTJ-12-2317, 25 July 2012. [Per J. Sereno].

14.Report on the Judicial Audit Conducted in the RTC-Branch 20, Manila, A.M. No. 00-1-48-RTC (Resolution), 12 October 2000, 396 Phil. 749-755 [Per J. Buena].