Perez v. Concepcion
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant-lawyer Patrick Juan C. Perez charged respondent Judge Ignacio R. Concepcion with gross inefficiency and manifest partiality amounting to grave misconduct in handling Criminal Case Nos. 70-96 and 71-96 (slight physical injuries) and Criminal Case No. 75-96 (grave slander by deed). In Criminal Case Nos. 70-96 and 71-96, which fall under the Rules on Summary Procedure, respondent judge granted accused Joseph M. Terrado's urgent motion for extension of time to submit a counter-affidavit, despite knowing it was prohibited under the Rules. Subsequently, respondent judge granted Terrado's request to file a motion to quash and, despite an order deeming the motion and opposition submitted for resolution, failed to resolve the incident for over a year. In Criminal Case No. 76-96, respondent judge gave due course to a countercharge filed by Terrado against Eduardo Tagulao and Dr. Eric Jose C. Perez. The subpoena in this case was signed by a court interpreter related to Terrado and his counsel. Complainant asserted that the respondent judge demonstrated a willing attitude to accommodate accused Terrado and his counsel. On January 27, 1998, respondent judge ordered the issuance of a warrant of arrest against the complainant in Criminal Case No. 75-96. Procedural History: Respondent judge filed his Comment on July 7, 1998, averring that he granted the motion for extension of time "in the interest of justice" despite its prohibition. Respondent judge compulsorily retired from service on February 1, 1999. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCAD) recommended a fine of P30,000.00 for gross inefficiency due to violations of the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. The Petition: The administrative matter was filed by Atty. Patrick Juan Perez against Judge Ignacio R. Concepcion.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed gross inefficiency and manifest partiality amounting to grave misconduct by violating the Rules on Summary Procedure. Whether respondent judge violated the Rules on Summary Procedure by allowing prohibited motions. Whether the delay in resolving the motion to quash constitutes gross inefficiency.
Ruling
The Court found respondent judge guilty of gross inefficiency and imposed a fine of P10,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of gross inefficiency and manifest partiality amounting to grave misconduct by violating the Rules on Summary Procedure: The Court held that respondent judge was guilty of gross inefficiency for violating the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure. Section 19 of the 1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure explicitly prohibits motions for extension of time to file pleadings, affidavits, or any other paper, as well as motions to dismiss or quash the complaint or information, except on limited grounds. The respondent judge, in Criminal Case Nos. 70-96 and 71-96, knowingly granted a motion for extension of time to file a counter-affidavit and a motion to quash, despite being fully cognizant of the prohibition under the Rules. The Court emphasized that even a cursory reading of the Rules would reveal that these motions are prohibited and should not have been allowed or entertained. The respondent's violation was deliberate, conscious, and intentional, as he expressly stated in his order that he knew of the prohibition. His invocation of equity to justify his actions was deemed insufficient to absolve him from administrative liability, as elementary principles dictate that when laws or rules are clear, they must be applied regardless of personal beliefs or predilections. On the issue of respondent judge violating the Rules on Summary Procedure by allowing prohibited motions: Therefore, by allowing these prohibited motions, the respondent judge evidently manifested gross inefficiency and overtly transgressed basic mandatory rules designed for the expeditious resolution of cases. On the issue of delay in resolving the motion to quash: The Court rejected the respondent's excuse of a heavy caseload as a justification for the delay in resolving the pending motion to quash. The Court reiterated that delay in resolving motions and incidents within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days, as fixed by the Constitution and law, is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency. This principle was underscored by the citation of Guintu vs. Lucero, 261 SCRA 1. Furthermore, the respondent judge failed to observe Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct, which mandates that a magistrate shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods. The failure to resolve the motion to quash within a reasonable time, let alone the constitutional and legal reglementary period, further demonstrates gross inefficiency.
Main Doctrine
A judge who knowingly allows prohibited motions under the Rules on Summary Procedure, such as a motion to quash or a motion for extension of time to file a counter-affidavit, commits gross inefficiency and transgresses basic mandatory rules, regardless of any invocation of equity or claims of heavy caseload.