Pernea v. Montecillo
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Josefa Pernea filed a civil case (Civil Case No. 715-G) against Filemon Pernea et al. The decision dated June 28, 1973, adjudicated the subject property in favor of the defendants. Procedural History: Complainant filed a notice of appeal on July 20, 1973, having received the decision on July 2, 1973. On the same date, she filed a motion to appeal as pauper and for a sixty (60)-day extension to file the record on appeal. Defendants objected, alleging complainant was a real property owner. The respondent judge held the resolution of the motion in abeyance and directed the Fiscal's Office to investigate conflicting certifications regarding complainant's property declarations. The Fiscal's Office recommended no action against the complainant and the Assistant Municipal Treasurer, stating the property was capital property of complainant's husband acquired before marriage. On October 8, 1973, the respondent judge denied a motion for complainant to secure another lawyer and stated that the notice of appeal would be considered filed out of time until complainant's property ownership claim was verified. On October 31, 1973, the respondent judge issued an order stating no criminal liability was incurred in issuing the certification for pauper litigant and directed the issuance of a writ of execution, considering the notice of appeal filed out of time. The Petition: Complainant charged the respondent judge with grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law for failing to resolve her motion and dismissing her appeal.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of authority and ignorance of the law by failing to resolve the complainant's motion to appeal as pauper and for extension of time to file the record on appeal, thereby erroneously considering the notice of appeal filed out of time.
Ruling
The respondent Judge Juan Montecillo is found guilty of gross negligence and incompetence. He is fined an amount equivalent to three (3) months' salary with a stern warning against repetition of similar offenses.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the respondent judge's failure to resolve the motion and considering the notice of appeal out of time: The Court found that the respondent judge was guilty of gross negligence and incompetence. The records clearly showed that the notice of appeal and the motion to litigate as pauper and for extension of time to file the record on appeal were timely filed on July 20, 1973, considering the complainant received the decision on July 2, 1973. The reglementary period of thirty (30) days for perfecting an appeal expired on August 1, 1973. Since the motion was filed within this period, the respondent court was duty-bound to resolve it before declaring the judgment final and executory. The Court reiterated the principle that a motion to appeal as pauper and to extend the period for filing the record on appeal must be filed within the 30-day reglementary period and should be heard and resolved promptly. Litigants are entitled to be notified of the court's action on any motion submitted for resolution, and courts are bound to act on motions with sufficient dispatch to allow parties to avail themselves of proper remedies. The respondent judge's failure to act on the motion and his declaration that the appeal was out of time were contrary to the records and constituted gross negligence and incompetence. Despite this finding, the Court noted that the appeal itself should be dismissed as it could no longer be reinstated because no record on appeal was filed within the expired period.
Main Doctrine
A judge is guilty of gross negligence and incompetence for failing to resolve a motion to appeal as pauper and for declaring a notice of appeal filed out of time when the records show it was timely filed, thereby depriving the litigant of the proper remedy.