Ochoa v. Tolentino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from an unlawful detainer action filed by Elisa Vda. de Ochoa and Aida O. Veloso against Johnny Galicia and Gertrudes Galicia. The parties had entered into a compromise agreement wherein the defendants acknowledged a rental balance of P2,700.00, payable in monthly installments of P2,000.00, with the first payment due by January 5, 1973. The agreement stipulated that failure to pay two consecutive installments or to pay current rentals within fifteen days would result in the defendants vacating the premises within five days of written notice, otherwise execution would immediately follow. Procedural History: The plaintiffs initiated a petition for execution on June 15, 1973, citing the defendants' failure to pay installments from February onwards. The respondent judge granted this petition, and a writ of execution was issued. The defendants sought reconsideration, which was initially denied. However, upon a second motion for reconsideration, the respondent judge recalled the writ and granted the defendants five days to pay the outstanding installments. The plaintiffs then filed a motion for reconsideration of this order, arguing that the defendants had not availed themselves of the grace period and had defaulted on payments. This motion was deemed submitted on September 17, 1973. Despite the pending motion, the respondent judge issued an order on February 13, 1974, finding the motion well-founded but granting the defendants an additional sixty days to pay their accumulated arrears, which had risen to P3,600.00. The complainants also alleged partiality, citing a conversation where the respondent judge admitted the defendants had asked him to intervene and pleaded with the plaintiffs' counsel to allow them to remain in the premises. The Petition: The complainants filed a sworn complaint against the respondent judge for undue delay in resolving their motion for reconsideration and for partiality. The case was investigated by the Executive Judge, who found that the respondent judge had indeed delayed the resolution of the motion beyond the reglementary period and had acted with gross partiality by repeatedly extending the defendants' time to pay arrears, contrary to established jurisprudence. The Investigating Judge recommended suspension and a fine, but the Supreme Court, adopting the findings, imposed a fine equivalent to three months' salary upon the respondent judge.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge was guilty of undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration. Whether the respondent judge was guilty of partiality. Whether the respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction.
Ruling
The respondent judge is found GUILTY of undue delay in the resolution of the motion for reconsideration and partiality. The Court imposes a fine equivalent to three (3) months' salary upon the respondent.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of undue delay: The Investigating Judge found that the respondent judge failed to resolve the motion for reconsideration within the 90-day reglementary period. Excluding the submission date, 149 days elapsed from September 18, 1973, to February 13, 1974, which was 59 days beyond the reglementary period. The respondent's justifications, such as the belief in amicable settlement or the defendants' sincerity in paying, were deemed insufficient to excuse this delay. The Court emphasized that under Rule 70, Section 8 of the Rules of Court, a court cannot extend the period for making monthly payments in ejectment cases, a principle consistently applied by the Supreme Court. On the issue of partiality and grave abuse of discretion: The Investigating Judge found gross partiality. The respondent judge, despite clear violations of the compromise agreement by the defendants (owing for June and July 1973, plus P900.00 for May 1973), recalled the writ of execution and granted the defendants five days to pay arrears. This action was contrary to the agreement and the law. Furthermore, after the plaintiffs protested and filed a motion for reconsideration, the respondent judge, after a significant delay, denied the motion in effect by granting the defendants an additional sixty days to pay the increased back rentals. This conduct was considered an evasion of positive duty and a grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction, as it contravened the mandatory nature of execution orders in ejectment cases when defaults occur. On the application of jurisprudence and the issue of grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack of jurisdiction: The Court relied on the principle established in Chieng Hung vs. Tam Ten, et al., which clearly states that the court cannot extend the time for making monthly deposits or excuse defaults therein. Failure to comply with the prescribed payments entitles the plaintiff to immediate restoration of possession. The respondent judge's orders, which extended the payment periods and recalled the writ of execution despite defaults, were in direct contravention of this settled and strictly applied jurisprudence. The Investigating Judge noted that the respondent judge's orders were "in grave abuse of discretion, amounting to lack of jurisdiction."
Main Doctrine
A judge is guilty of undue delay in resolving a motion for reconsideration and partiality when they fail to act on a motion within the reglementary period and show bias towards one party, particularly when such actions contravene established jurisprudence and the Rules of Court regarding ejectment cases and compromise agreements.