Bascug v. Arinday, Jr.
REITERATIONFacts
1. The Antecedents: Complainant Laurentino D. Bascug filed a complaint against Judge Graciano H. Arinday, Jr., alleging grave misconduct, knowingly rendering an unjust judgment, malicious delay in justice, and violation of the code of judicial conduct. The allegations stemmed from two civil cases (No. 1797-69 and No. 1798-69) concerning a failure to attach a certificate of barangay conciliation, and another civil case (No. 1718-69) where the judge allegedly directed a judgment on the pleadings without the defendant corporation's agreement. A criminal case (No. 4000-69) regarding an alleged irregularity in the service of a warrant of arrest was also mentioned. 2. Procedural History: The two civil cases were initially dismissed by the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) for lack of barangay conciliation. Upon appeal to the Regional Trial Court (RTC), respondent judge reversed the dismissal and ordered further proceedings. Subsequent motions for reconsideration were filed and eventually denied. The records were only remanded to the MCTC much later. In Civil Case No. 1718-69, the respondent judge rendered a judgment on the pleadings, which was later set aside by the Court of Appeals and remanded for further proceedings. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) evaluated the complaint and found the judge liable for delaying the resolution of the first two civil cases and for grave misconduct in the third civil case. 3. The Petition: This case originated from a complaint filed with the Supreme Court, which was referred to the OCA for evaluation. The OCA recommended that the respondent judge be fined for unreasonably delaying proceedings in Civil Cases No. 1797-69 and No. 1798-69, and for grave misconduct in Civil Case No. 1718-69. The Supreme Court adopted the OCA's recommendation, finding the judge guilty of gross inefficiency and grave misconduct, and imposing a fine of P5,000.00 with a warning.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge was guilty of gross inefficiency and grave misconduct for delaying the resolution of Civil Cases No. 1797-69 and No. 1798-69. Whether respondent judge committed grave misconduct in Civil Case No. 1718-69 by rendering a judgment on the pleadings without the agreement of all parties. Whether respondent judge was liable for irregularities in Criminal Case No. 4000-69.
Ruling
The Supreme Court found Judge Graciano H. Arinday, Jr. guilty of gross inefficiency and grave misconduct and imposed a fine of P5,000.00 with a warning.
Ratio Decidendi
On the delay in Civil Cases No. 1797-69 and No. 1798-69: The Court held that a motion for reconsideration must be resolved within thirty days from submission. In this case, the second motion for reconsideration was filed on January 16, 1996, and given due course on January 23, 1996. However, it was only resolved on November 12, 1996, and the records were ordered remanded on June 13, 1997. This failure to act with reasonable dispatch constituted gross inefficiency. Furthermore, the Court noted that a second motion for reconsideration should not have been allowed under the rules, indicating a lack of circumspection. Any delay in the disposition of cases erodes public faith in the judiciary, a situation that cannot be ignored. On the judgment on the pleadings in Civil Case No. 1718-69: The Court agreed with the OCA that respondent judge committed grave misconduct. Section 1, Rule 34 of the Rules on Civil Procedure allows judgment on the pleadings only when the answer fails to tender an issue or admits material allegations. The records showed that while respondent judge required memoranda for judgment on the pleadings, only the plaintiffs submitted one. The defendants, including the corporation where complainant was president, did not agree to submit the case for judgment on the pleadings, as evidenced by their motion for reconsideration and the Court of Appeals' finding that the parties presented "widely opposing contentions." The appellate court correctly pointed out that the trial court's statement that both parties agreed was not supported by the minutes, which merely stated they would submit memoranda. This prevented a fair and full resolution of the controversy. On Criminal Case No. 4000-69: The Court found no basis to hold respondent judge liable for the alleged irregularities in the service of the warrant of arrest. Respondent judge argued that such issues should have been addressed to the Chief of Police, which was a reasonable assertion given the nature of the complaint.
Main Doctrine
A judge is liable for gross inefficiency and grave misconduct for unreasonably delaying the resolution of motions for reconsideration beyond the reglementary period and for issuing orders that disregard the agreement of the parties or the absence thereof, thereby preventing a fair and full resolution of the controversy.