Saylo v. Rojo
MODIFICATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Nelfa Saylo charged Judge Remigio V. Rojo with Manifest Partiality and Gross Neglect of Duty for refusing to issue a writ of replevin in Civil Case No. 23314, "Nelfa Saylo vs. Becky Luo Saylo, et al.", for Replevin, despite the lapse of six months after filing and subsequent motions. Complainant feared the subject motor vehicle could be destroyed or lost while defendants were still using it. Procedural History: Complainant filed the civil case on December 5, 1996. She alleged compliance with Rule 60, Section 2 of the Rules of Court, but the judge had not issued the writ as required by Section 3. She also claimed the judge exhibited partiality by refusing to issue the writ and to act on her motion to declare defendants in default. Judge Rojo submitted a comment, denying the charges and asserting impartiality. He explained that he had orally advised the plaintiff's counsel of defects in the complaint and affidavit, which counsel failed to correct. He also stated that the motions were resolved within the 90-day period prescribed by the Judiciary Act of 1948. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found no clear proof of manifest partiality but found the judge guilty of gross neglect of duty, recommending a fine. The Petition: The complainant sought the dismissal of Judge Rojo from the service.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Remigio V. Rojo committed Manifest Partiality. Whether respondent Judge Remigio V. Rojo committed Gross Neglect of Duty.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found no sufficient evidence to support the charge of Manifest Partiality but found sufficient evidence to hold respondent Judge Remigio V. Rojo guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty. Accordingly, a fine of P5,000.00 was imposed with a stern warning.
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of Manifest Partiality: The Court held that bias and partiality cannot be presumed from the circumstances stated by the complainant. The burden of proof rests on the complainant, who failed to substantiate her allegations with convincing proof. The respondent judge's denial of the defendants' motion to dismiss and his voluntary inhibitions in other cases where family relationships existed with parties or counsels were noted as indicators of impartiality. Therefore, the charge of manifest partiality was dismissed for lack of clear and convincing evidence. On the charge of Gross Neglect of Duty: The Court agreed with the OCA that there was substantial evidence to support this charge. The respondent judge incorrectly reckoned the 90-day reglementary period for resolving motions from the date of the "Motion to Resolve" rather than from the filing of the original "Motion for Issuance of Writ of Replevin" on December 5, 1996. The OCA found that the motion was resolved on June 2, 1997, after 179 days, significantly exceeding the 90-day period. Rule 3.05 of Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct enjoins judges to attend promptly to court business and decide cases and incidents within the time fixed by law. Failure to do so constitutes gross inefficiency and misconduct, detrimental to the administration of justice. The Court emphasized that undue delay cannot be countenanced, and judges are expected to exercise utmost diligence. The respondent judge's failure to resolve the motion within the prescribed period subjected him to administrative sanctions.
Main Doctrine
A judge's failure to resolve motions within the 90-day reglementary period constitutes gross neglect of duty, and the period for resolution should be reckoned from the filing of the original motion, not from the filing of a subsequent motion to resolve.