Ramiro v. Buenagua

THIRD DIVISION

[A.M. No. RTJ-21-016. September 29, 2021.][Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-5009-RTJ]

CYNTHIA B. RAMIRO, complainant, vs.HON. CAESAR C. BUENAGUA, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 37, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT [RTC], CALAMBA CITY, LAGUNA, respondent.

NOTICE

Sirs/Mesdames :

Please take notice that the Court, Third Division, issued a Resolution datedSeptember 29, 2021, which reads as follows: HTcADC

"A.M. No. RTJ-21-016 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 19-5009-RTJ] (Cynthia B. Ramiro v. Hon. Caesar C. Buenagua, Presiding Judge, Branch 37, Regional Trial Court [RTC], Calamba City, Laguna). — For the Court's resolution is a Complaint 1 dated November 13, 2019 filed with the Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) by Cynthia B. Ramiro (complainant) against respondent Judge Caesar C. Buenagua (Judge Buenagua) of Branch 37, Regional Trial Court (RTC), Calamba City, Laguna for the undue delay in resolving a motion for reconsideration relative to Civil Case No. 5304-2018-C entitled "Cynthia B. Ramiro, et al. v. Sps. Olga M. San Pedro and Gilberto C. San Pedro."2

Complainant alleged that Civil Case No. 5304-2018-C was initially raffled to Branch 34, RTC, Calamba City, Laguna and dismissed by Judge Maria Florencia Formes-Baculo (Judge Formes-Baculo). She filed a motion for reconsideration of the order of dismissal and sought the inhibition of Judge Formes-Baculo. When Judge Formes-Baculo inhibited herself, the case was raffled to Branch 37, RTC, Calamba City, Laguna presided by Judge Buenagua. 3

On May 2, 2019, the motion for reconsideration was supposedly submitted for resolution. However, by October 2019, or after the lapse of more or less six months, complainant found out that Civil Case No. 5304-2018-C remained idle. She suspected that Judge Buenagua might antedate the resolution because more than six months had already passed since it was submitted for resolution. Complainant added that she is already a senior citizen and that she earnestly hopes that she is still alive when Civil Case No. 5304-2018-C is ultimately resolved. 4

Hence, the complaint.

In his Comment, 5 Judge Buenagua clarified that he immediately set the hearing on the motion for reconsideration on May 2, 2019. He gave spouses Olga M. San Pedro and Gilberto C. San Pedro (defendants) fifteen (15) days to file their comment/opposition and the plaintiffs (including herein complainant) five (5) days to file their reply thereto. 6

On May 7, 2019 defendants filed their comment/opposition. However, Judge Buenagua remained unaware that the period for the plaintiffs to file their reply had lapsed because the comment/opposition was served via registered mail. On November 8, 2019, he presumed that no reply would be filed, and thus, finally declared the motion for reconsideration submitted for resolution. On November 13, 2019, Judge Buenagua resolved the motion, without the reply. 7

Judge Buenagua further explained that he gave plaintiffs ample time to file a reply after they prayed for it; and for that action, he is now being blamed. He added that complainant must have been disgruntled by the issuance of an adverse resolution, and thus, resorted to filing the administrative case out of vindictiveness. 8

OCA Report and Recommendation

In its Agenda Report 9 dated October 2, 2020, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) held that complainant misunderstood the Order 10 dated May 2, 2019 considering that the motion for reconsideration would only be deemed submitted for resolution upon the submission of comment/opposition and reply by the defendants and plaintiffs, respectively. However, complainant was correct in asserting that there was a delay in the proceedings. Hence, OCA recommended that: (1) the instant administrative complaint be redocketed as a regular administrative matter; and (2) Judge Buenagua be found guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision or order and be reprimanded with a stern warning that a repetition of the same shall be dealt with more severely. 11

Issue

Whether Judge Buenagua is guilty of undue delay in rendering a decision or order.

Our Ruling

The Court adopts the findings of the OCA, but modifies the penalty imposed.

Needless to state, judges are mandated to decide cases with dispatch. Failure to do so not only deprives the parties of their right to the speedy disposition of their cases but also undermines the people's faith and confidence in the judiciary, as an institution. 12 Records disclose that defendants filed their comment on the motion as early as May 7, 2019. Thus, plaintiffs had five days to file their reply thereto. However, it was not until November 8, 2019, when Judge Buenagua was convinced that no reply on the comment was coming and finally declared the motion for reconsideration submitted for resolution. As a result of his complacency, no action was apparently taken on the case for almost six months. 13

Judge Buenagua's failure to perform his judicial duty with reasonable promptness in this respect clearly contravenes Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary, viz.:

Section 5. Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

Under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as amended, 14undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge punishable by either: (a) suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months; or (b) a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not more than P20,000.00.

In Rubin, et al. v. Judge Corpus-Cabochan, 15 the Court found respondent judge guilty of undue delay in resolving an appeal. In deciding the penalty to be imposed, the Court explained that several factors are taken into consideration. These are: period of delay, damage suffered by the parties, number of years the judge has been in service, the health and age of the judge and caseload of the court presided by respondent judge, among others. The Court therein imposed admonition on Judge Corpus-Cabochan considering that it is her first infraction in her more than twenty three (23) years of service, her frail health, the caseload of her court, and her candid admission of her infraction. 16

Considering that this is the first time that Judge Buenagua has been found administratively liable, the appropriate penalty under the circumstances is admonition.

WHEREFORE, the Court RESOLVES to REDOCKET this matter as a regular administrative matter and finds Judge Caesar C. Buenagua of Branch 37, Regional Trial Court, Calamba City, Laguna GUILTY of Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision or Order. He is hereby ADMONISHED with a STERN WARNING that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will warrant the imposition of a more severe penalty.

SO ORDERED." (ROSARIO, J., designated as Additional Member per Special Order No. 2833, effective June 30, 2021.)

By authority of the Court:

(SGD.) MISAEL DOMINGO C. BATTUNG IIIDivision Clerk of Court

 

Footnotes

1.Rollo, p. 2.

2. A case filed by complainant against Olga S. San Pedro to declare as null and void, the deed of conveyance involving the 18,257-sqm. property allegedly belonging to complainant's late husband; id.

3.Id.

4.Id.

5.Id. at 4-6.

6.Id. at 4-5.

7.Id.

8.Id.

9.Id. at 16-18; penned by Court Administrator Jose Midas P. Marquez with Deputy Court Administrator Raul Bautista Villanueva.

10.Id. at 9.

11.Id. at 17-18.

12.Re: Cases Submitted for Decision Before Hon. Teresito A. Andoy, former Judge, MTC, Cainta, Rizal, 634 Phil. 378, 381 (2010).

13.Rollo, p. 17.

14. Section 9 (1) in relation to Section 11 (b) of A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC.

15. 715 Phil. 318 (2013).

16.Id. at 334.