SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. RTJ-21-002. December 6, 2021.]
SPOUSES GEMMER Q. DE LOS SANTOS and EVANGELINE O. DE LOS SANTOS, plaintiff-appellees,vs. HON. VICENTE S. DE LA PLAZA II, IN HIS CAPACITY AS PRESIDING JUDGE OF THE REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, 9TH JUDICIAL REGION, BRANCH 36, IPIL, ZAMBOANGA SIBUGAY, accused-appellant.
NOTICE
Sirs/Mesdames :
Please take notice that the Court, Second Division, issued a Resolution dated 06 December 2021 which reads as follows:
"A.M. No. RTJ-21-002 [Formerly OCA IPI No. 18-4903-RTJ](Spouses Gemmer Q. De Los Santos and Evangeline O. De Los Santos v. Hon. Vicente S. De La Plaza II, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch 36, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay). — The spouses Gemmer Q. De Los Santos and Evangeline O. De Los Santos (spouses De Los Santos) filed this Verified Complaint 1 against Judge Vicente S. De La Plaza II (Judge De La Plaza) charging him with a) violation of Republic Act No. (RA) 3019; b) gross misconduct constituting a violation of the New Code of Judicial Conduct; c) knowingly rendering an unjust order; d) gross ignorance of the law relative to Civil Case No. 60-N; 2 e) undue delay in rendering a decision or order; and f) violation of Supreme Court rules, directives, and circulars. 3
The Antecedents:
The spouses De Los Santos, plaintiff-appellees in Civil Case No. 60-N, alleged that on December 27, 2016, the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Naga-Titay, Zamboanga Sibugay (MCTC of Naga-Titay) rendered a judgment in their favor. Hence, on February 15, 2017, they filed a Motion for the Issuance of Writ of Execution. Meanwhile, the defendants-appellants in the said civil case filed a Notice of Appeal with Ex-parte Motion for Approval of Supersedeas Bond which was given due course by the MCTC of Naga-Titay in an Order dated March 15, 2017. 4
On April 25, 2017, the defendants-appellants requested for an extension of 20 days within which to file their Memorandum of Appeal. In an Order dated April 26, 2017, the Regional Trial Court (RTC), Branch 36, of Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, presided by Judge De La Plaza, granted the motion. On May 24, 2017, the defendants-appellants again requested that they be allowed submit their Memorandum of Appeal on May 29, 2017. On May 30, 2017, the spouses De Los Santos filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation praying for the dismissal of defendants-appellants' appeal. 5
On August 16, 2017, Judge De La Plaza dismissed the appeal in light of the defendants-appellant's failure to file their·Memorandum of Appeal. On August 31, 2017, the defendants-appellants filed a Motion for Reconsideration of the August 16, 2017 Order. 6
Meanwhile, on September 6, 2017, the spouses De Los Santos filed a Motion for Issuance of Writ of Execution before the RTC. Despite the earlier denial of their appeal, the defendants-appellants on September 8, 2017 still filed a Memorandum of Appeal. On November 27, 2017, the spouses De Los Santo filed an Ex-Parte Manifestation for the Issuance of a Writ of Execution, followed by a Second Ex-Parte Manifestation dated March 20, 2018, and a third and last Ex-Parte Manifestation dated June 21, 2018. Notably, Judge De La Plaza considered the defendants-appellants' motion for reconsideration of the August 16, 2017 Order as submitted for resolution only when he issued an Order dated July 30, 2018. 7
Judge De La Plaza, in his Comment 8 (to the instant Complaint), averred that the charges against him were rooted on the following: 1) submission for resolution of the defendants-appellants' Motion for Reconsideration dated August 31, 2017 (of the August 16, 2017 Order which dismissed their appeal); and 2) his failure to issue a writ of execution in favor of the herein complainants in relation to the August 16, 2017 Order (which dismissed the appeal of the defendants-appellants). 9
Judge De La Plaza alleged that the defendants-appellants filed their motion for reconsideration on time since the pleading was filed in court and served upon the spouses De Los Santos on August 31, 2017. Hence, the period to appeal was suspended thereby preventing the August 16, 2017 Order from attaining finality. He posited that he could not issue a writ of execution until after the denial of the defendants-appellants' motion for reconsideration. As such, he should not be faulted for not issuing a writ of execution, or charged with violations of Section 3 (e) and (f) of RA 3019, rendering an unjust interlocutory order, and gross ignorance of the law, as he acted pursuant to the rules. 10
Nonetheless, Judge De La Plaza conceded that there was delay in resolving the defendants-appellants' motion for reconsideration. He explained that his workload as Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 36, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay and as Acting Presiding Judge of the RTC, Branch 31, Imelda, Zamboanga Sibugay (which is 51 kilometers away from Branch 36) caused the delay. He asserted that when he assumed his duties at Branch 31 in May 2017, he inherited a caseload of 1,195 criminal cases, more than 70% of which involved illegal drugs cases, and around 200 civil cases. Yet, he is mandated to resolve the illegal drugs cases within six months and to render judgment within 15 days from the time a case is submitted for decision. The average hearing time of 16 criminal cases every Tuesday and Thursday was not enough to cover the criminal cases pending before Branch 31.
Respondent claimed that these hampered his capacity to dispose the cases pending before his original sala, Branch 36, majority of which also involved illegal drugs. Sometime in August 2017, he was diagnosed with peptic ulcer which caused him pains severe enough to affect his work output. He exerted best efforts not to incur delay in the resolution of cases pending in both salas,and that he had to prioritize the disposition of criminal cases. 11
The spouses De Los Santos, in their Reply, 12 argued that Judge De La Plaza's explanation regarding the non-finality of the August 16, 2017 Order which prevented him from issuing a writ of execution is contrary to Section 21, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court. They contended that the judgment of the trial court in an appealed ejectment case is immediately executory even while pending appeal and that it cannot be stayed by the defendant by filing a supersedeas bond and making the periodic deposit. 13 They argued that the defendants-appellants failed and refused, and still fails and refuses, to make a periodic deposit of the monthly rental, as evidenced by their (defendants-appellants') failure to furnish them with copies of the official receipts of the supposed periodic deposits. 14
Evaluation and Recommendation
In its Evaluation and Recommendation 15 dated December 17, 2020, the OCA found Judge De La Plaza to not have erred when he did not immediately issue a writ of execution. This is considering that the defendants-appellants' motion for reconsideration of the August 16, 2017 Order has not yet been resolved. It explained that as a general rule, a judgment in favor of the plaintiff in an ejectment suit is immediately executory. To stay the immediate execution of the judgment while pending appeal, the following requisites must concur: (1) the defendant perfects his/her appeal; (2) he/she files a supersedeas bond; and (3) he/she periodically deposits the rentals which become due during the pendency of the appeal. The defendant's failure to comply with any of these conditions is a ground for the outright execution of the judgment, and the trial court's duty to carry out the execution then becomes ministerial.
In this case, the defendants-appellants' motion for reconsideration (of the Order dismissing their appeal) has not yet been resolved. Moreover, the spouses De Los Santos did not present evidence to show that the defendants-appellants' failure to comply with the requisites to stay execution of the judgment would warrant the immediate execution in their favor.
According to the OCA, given that the matter is also judicial in nature, Judge De La Plaza could not be disciplined for the charges pertaining to the exercise of his judicial functions — specifically violation of RA 3019, gross misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust order, and gross ignorance of the law. It opined that the spouses De Los Santos could have filed a petition for mandamus or pursued another judicial recourse to compel Judge De La Plaza to issue a writ of execution.
Nevertheless, the OCA found that there is sufficient ground to hold Judge De La Plaza liable for undue delay in rendering an order. Pursuant to Section 4, Rule 37 of the Rules of Court, a motion for reconsideration should be resolved within thirty (30) days from the time of its submission for resolution. It specified that —
[A]fter the filing by defendants-appellants of their Motion for Reconsideration dated 31 August 2017 of the 16 August 2017 Order dismissing the appeal, respondent Judge issued an Order elated 30 July 2018 submitting the said motion for resolution. The thirty (30)-day period for resolution expired on 29 August 2018. However, respondent Judge issued the resolution denying the motion for reconsideration only on 17 December 2018. It is, therefore, undeniable that there was undue delay on the part of respondent Judge in resolving the motion for reconsideration. 16
The OCA further stated that Judge De La Plaza has the duty to comply with the rules as well as the administrative guidelines regarding the prompt disposition of the court's businesses, and to resolve cases within the required period. Also, he could have filed a request for an extension to resolve the motion for reconsideration but he did not do so.
Rule 140 of the Rules of Court provides that undue delay in rendering an order, categorized as a less serious charge, is punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. Since this is Judge De La Plaza's first offense, the OCA recommended the imposition of a P10,000.00 fine and a stern warning that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Our Ruling
The Court adopts and approves the recommendation of the OCA.
Indeed, Judge De La Plaza could not be penalized for the charges related to the performance of his judicial functions. Complainants should have resorted to other judicial remedies to pursue their legal claims in the civil case instead of raising their concerns in the instant disciplinary complaint.
Withal, Judge De La Plaza should not be condemned for refusing to immediately issue a writ of execution in their favor considering that the defendants-appellants' motion for reconsideration of the dismissal of their appeal was still pending at the time. Moreover, the spouses De Los Santos did not submit sufficient evidence to show that the defendants-appellants did not tender the supersedeas bond or periodic deposits which would justify the issuance of the writ of execution.
However, as clearly pointed out by the OCA, Judge De La Plaza resolved the defendants-appellants' motion for reconsideration only on December 17, 2018, long after the August 29, 2018 deadline for its resolution, in violation of the rules. His claim of heavy workload and that criminal cases should be given priority fails to persuade. He ought to know that he should have sought an extension for more time to resolve the said motion, yet he did not. Hence, he should be penalized for resolving the motion beyond the allotted period.
Undoubtedly "[j]udges have the duty to administer justice without delay. They should bear in mind that those charged with the task of dispensing justice carry a heavy burden of responsibility." 17 Furthermore, "[w]hile this Court is aware of the heavy case load of trial courts, and has allowed reasonable extensions of time needed to decide cases or resolve pending incidents therein, such extensions must first be requested from the Court. A judge cannot by himself choose to prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law." 18
In the case at bench, Judge De La Plaza did not request for an extension of time to resolve the defendants-appellants' motion for reconsideration of the August 16, 2017 Order, notwithstanding that existing rules require the prompt disposition of cases, including their pending incidents.
In considering the proper imposable penalty, we take into consideration Judge De La Plaza's health and workload, especially since he is also an Acting Presiding Judge in another sala, as well as the fact that this is his first infraction.
A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, which took effect on October 1, 2001, applies in this case. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious offense and penalized, as follows:
SEC. 9. Less Serious Charges. — Less serious charges include:
1. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order, or in transmitting the records of a case;
xxx xxx xxx
SEC. 11. Sanctions. — x x x
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. 19
We find a fine in the amount of P10,000.00 and a stern warning to be appropriate under the circumstances.
To reiterate, "the honor and integrity of the judicial system is measured not only by the fairness and correctness of decisions rendered, but also by the efficiency with which disputes are resolved. Thus, judges must perform their official duties with utmost diligence if public confidence in the judiciary is to be preserved. There is no excuse for mediocrity in the performance of judicial functions. The position of judge exacts nothing less than faithful observance of the law and the Constitution in the discharge of official duties." 20 Even so, leeway may be granted to magistrates, considering the heavy workload. However, there are rules or guidelines to follow before concessions or extensions may be granted. Judges are well aware of these directives, and Judge De La Plaza is no exception.
WHEREFORE, Judge Vicente S. De La Plaza II, in his capacity as Presiding Judge of the Regional Trial Court, 9th Judicial Region, Branch 36, Ipil, Zamboanga Sibugay, is found GUILTY of UNDUE DELAY IN RENDERING AN ORDER and is fined the amount of Ten Thousand Pesos (P10,000.00) and is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
The charges of violation of Republic Act No. 3019, gross misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust order, and gross ignorance the law against Judge Vicente S. De La Plaza II are hereby DISMISSED for lack of merit.
SO ORDERED."(Gaerlan and Dimaampao, JJ., on official leave).
By authority of the Court:
(SGD.) TERESITA AQUINO TUAZONDivision Clerk of Court
Footnotes
1.Rollo, pp. 4-11.
2.Spouses Gemmer and Evangeline De Los Santos v. Loreta vda. De Araneta.
3.Rollo, p. 5.
4.Id. at 5-6.
5.Id. at 6-7.
6.Id. at 7.
7.Id. at 7-8.
8.Id. at 111-116.
9.Id. at 114.
10.Id at 114-115.
11.Id. at 115.
12.Id. at 73-79.
13.Id. at 74.
14.Id. at 74-75.
15.Id., unpaginated.
16.Id., OCA Administrative Matter for Agenda, p. 5.
17.Tengco v. Dela Cruz, A.M. No. RTJ-21-2608 (Notice), February 15, 2021.
18.Id.
19. A.M. No. 01-8-10-SC, October 1, 2001. See also: A.M. No. 21-03-17-SC, which took effect on May 31, 2021 and increased the fines provided in Rule 140 of the Rules of Court. However, the increase in fines cannot apply in this case since it would be more prejudicial to the respondent judge, pursuant to the directive of the Court in the recent case of Dela Rama v. De Leon, A.M. No. P-14-3240, March 2, 2021. The Dela Rama case held that for the purpose of a uniform application of charges and penalties, Rule 140, as amended, should apply to all pending administrative cases involving personnel of the Judiciary unless the Rule's retroactive application would be prejudicial to the person involved. If deemed detrimental, the prevailing rule at the time of the commission of the act/s or omission/s should apply, so as not to unduly prejudice the concerned personnel.
20.Office of the Court Administrator v. Teves, Sr., A.M. No. RTJ-21-2606 (Resolution), February 9, 2021 citing Office of the Court Administrator v. Casalan, 785 Phil. 350, 356 (2016).