Bajet v. Baclig
NEW DOCTRINEFacts
The Antecedents: This case originated from a complaint filed by Winnie Bajet against Judge Vivencio S. Baclig, charging the judge with violations of the Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act and administrative offenses including manifest partiality, evident bad faith, inexcusable negligence, serious neglect of duties, gross incompetence, and oppression. The core of the complaint stems from the judge's alleged improper entertainment of an ex parte motion for an alias writ of execution in a forcible entry case, Civil Case No. 14303, decided by the Metropolitan Trial Court (MeTC) of Quezon City. The MeTC had ordered the defendants, including Bajet, to vacate the premises and pay damages and attorney's fees. Procedural History: The MeTC decision was appealed to the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Quezon City, Branch 77. While the appeal was pending, the plaintiff filed a motion for execution pending appeal, which was granted by Judge Normandie B. Pizarro, despite the defendants' failure to appear at the hearing. Subsequent motions for reconsideration and omnibus motions by the defendants were denied. The case was then raffled to respondent Judge Vivencio S. Baclig, who denied the defendants' omnibus motion. The defendants elevated the matter to the Court of Appeals via a petition for certiorari, which was dismissed. Thereafter, the plaintiff filed an ex parte motion for an alias writ of execution, which respondent Judge Baclig granted. The case was subsequently re-raffled, and further proceedings occurred before other RTC branches. The administrative complaint against Judge Baclig was filed with the Office of the Ombudsman and subsequently referred to the Office of the Court Administrator. The Petition: This resolution addresses the administrative complaint filed by Winnie Bajet against Judge Vivencio S. Baclig. The complainant specifically faults the respondent judge for entertaining the ex parte motion for an alias writ of execution without proof of service, allegedly in violation of Rules 15, Sections 4 and 6 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure. The complainant also alleged that the judge failed to decide a case within the constitutional period. The respondent judge argued that the issuance of the alias writ was ministerial due to the defendants' failure to file a supersedeas bond and that the motion for alias writ was merely a reminder for implementation, not requiring a hearing. The Court, however, found the judge administratively liable for gross inefficiency due to the delay in deciding a case, despite clearing him on the issue of the alias writ.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent judge committed grave abuse of discretion in granting the ex parte motion for an alias writ of execution without proof of service. Whether respondent judge failed to decide the case within the period prescribed by the Constitution, constituting gross inefficiency.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Judge Vivencio S. Baclig administratively liable for gross inefficiency due to the delay in deciding a case. However, it ruled that he did not commit grave abuse of discretion in granting the ex parte motion for an alias writ of execution. The Court ordered respondent judge to pay a fine of P1,000.00 and warned him against repetition of the same or similar acts.
Ratio Decidendi
On the issue of the ex parte alias writ of execution: The Court clarified that the respondent judge was charged with issuing the alias writ, not the original writ. It noted that under the present Section 14, Rule 39 of the Rules of Civil Procedure, the lifetime of a writ of execution is no longer 60 days but within the period the judgment may be enforced by motion, which is within five years from entry. Therefore, the original writ of execution issued on November 25, 1997, was still effective when the motion for an alias writ was filed on November 9, 1998. The Court reasoned that the motion for an alias writ was superfluous and could be construed as a mere reminder for implementation. Consequently, it was a mode by which the plaintiff-appellee informed the court that the writ had not yet been implemented, and the court could act upon it without prejudicing the rights of the adverse party, making Sections 4 and 6 of Rule 15, requiring proof of service, inapplicable. The defendants-appellants were not deprived of due process because they had already been heard on a motion for reconsideration regarding the original writ, and they could have filed a motion to stay execution if they wished. On the issue of delay in disposition of cases: The Court found the respondent judge administratively liable for gross inefficiency. The judge's explanation that his heavy workload and reliance on his subordinate, who inadvertently failed to include the case in the list of those submitted for decision, was deemed unacceptable. The Court emphasized that a judge is mandated to decide cases within ninety days and that inability to do so is not excusable. The ultimate administrative responsibility rests on the judge's shoulders, as per the Code of Judicial Conduct, which requires judges to organize and supervise court personnel to ensure prompt and efficient dispatch of business. However, the Court considered the respondent's undisputed claim that he resolved all other cases within the period, his candor in acknowledging the delay, and the lack of undue damage caused by the delay as mitigating factors, leading to a recommendation of a fine instead of a more severe penalty.
Main Doctrine
A judge is administratively liable for gross inefficiency for undue delay in deciding cases, and reliance on subordinate personnel does not excuse the judge from this responsibility. However, the issuance of an alias writ of execution ex parte, when the original writ was still effective, may not constitute grave abuse of discretion if the motion for alias writ is construed as a mere reminder for implementation and does not prejudice the adverse party.