Dumaya v. Mendoza
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Mateo Dumaya filed a Forcible Entry case against Sps. Teddy Fernandez and Amelia Ventura, praying for a writ of preliminary injunction. On September 9, 1988, the respondent judge ordered the parties to submit their respective memoranda, after which the prayer for injunction would be deemed submitted for resolution. Procedural History: Five months later, on February 24, 1989, the complainant's counsel filed a petition to resolve the pending request for preliminary injunction. On March 15, 1989, the respondent judge issued an Order denying the writ, stating it was after considering the arguments in the pleadings. The complainant alleged that the delay unnecessarily prolonged the litigation. The Petition: The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the respondent judge failed to satisfactorily explain his delay in resolving the prayer for injunction after fifteen (15) days from September 9, 1988. The OCA recommended a fine of P2,000.00 for failure to apply the 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure. Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo Suarez noted that the case, being a forcible entry, should have been decided more expeditiously, taking over a year to resolve from filing.
Issue(s)
Whether the respondent judge committed misconduct due to unreasonable delay in resolving the prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction. Whether the 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure was applicable to Civil Case No. 379, considering the issue of ownership raised by the defendants.
Ruling
The Court found the respondent judge administratively liable for unreasonable delay in resolving the matter of whether to issue the writ of preliminary injunction. However, it found the recommended penalty of P2,000.00 too harsh. The Court imposed a fine of P1,000.00 with a warning.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of misconduct due to unreasonable delay: The Court held that a judge must perform official duties honestly, impartially, and diligently, disposing of business promptly and deciding cases within required periods. A delay of five (5) months in resolving a motion for a writ of preliminary injunction in a forcible entry case runs counter to the duty of speedy administration of justice. The respondent judge's excuse that he resolved the prayer before the complaint was filed is unavailing, as he evidently failed to resolve the issue within the period stated by law nor adequately explain the delay. Rule 70 of the Rules of Court mandates that in forcible entry cases where a motion for a writ of preliminary injunction has been filed to restore possession, the court shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof. The respondent judge's failure to adhere to this mandate constitutes administrative liability for unreasonable delay. On the applicability of the 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure: The Court clarified that while the OCA recommended a fine for failure to apply the Rule on Summary Procedure, Civil Case No. 379 was not strictly a case of forcible entry but involved an issue of ownership. The defendants alleged in their affirmative defense that they were owners of the property, having bought it in good faith and for value. Before its amendment in October 1991, the Rule on Summary Procedure was applicable to forcible entry cases except where the question of ownership is involved. Therefore, the old Rule on Summary Procedure was not applicable in this specific instance. Despite this, the Court reiterated that the delay in resolving the injunction was still a violation of the specific mandate under Rule 70 of the Rules of Court.
Main Doctrine
A judge's failure to act expeditiously on a motion for a writ of preliminary injunction, particularly in a forcible entry case, constitutes misconduct due to unreasonable delay, even if the case later involves a question of ownership that may render the Rule on Summary Procedure inapplicable. The mandate to decide such motions within thirty (30) days from filing must be observed.