Tamondong v. Pasal
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Atty. Eddie U. Tamondong filed an administrative complaint against Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal for gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, gross inefficiency, and/or neglect of duty. The complaint stemmed from Judge Pasal's handling of Special Civil Action No. 2013-184, a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction filed by Henmar Development Property, Inc. (Henmar) against an MTCC order denying its motion to dismiss in Civil Case No. 2012-06-04. The MTCC case was filed by the heirs of Enrique Abada against Henmar for quieting of title, recovery of possession, and annulment of titles. Procedural History: The MTCC denied Henmar's motion to dismiss and its subsequent motion for reconsideration. Henmar then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and preliminary injunction with the RTC, which was raffled to Branch 38, presided over by Judge Pasal. On December 23, 2013, Judge Pasal issued a Resolution dismissing Henmar's petition for lack of merit. Henmar filed a Motion for Reconsideration, which Judge Pasal deemed submitted for resolution on February 24, 2014. Despite the 30-day reglementary period expiring on March 26, 2014, Judge Pasal failed to resolve the motion for over six months, eventually issuing a resolution on June 17, 2014. The Petition: Atty. Tamondong contended that Judge Pasal's Resolution of December 23, 2013, was legally erroneous, citing improper service of summons, lack of territorial jurisdiction, and prescription of the action. He also alleged that Judge Pasal's failure to resolve the motion for reconsideration within six months constituted gross inefficiency and/or gross neglect of duty.
Issue(s)
Whether Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal committed gross ignorance of the law and/or gross incompetence in issuing his Resolution dated December 23, 2013. Whether Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal committed gross inefficiency and/or gross neglect of duty for his failure to seasonably act on and resolve Henmar's Motion for Reconsideration.
Ruling
The administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law and/or gross incompetence against Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal is DISMISSED. Judge Emmanuel P. Pasal is found GUILTY for his undue delay in the resolution of the Motion for Reconsideration and is FINED in the amount of Two Thousand Pesos (₱2,000.00).
Ratio Decidendi
On the charge of gross ignorance of the law and/or gross incompetence: The Court held that Atty. Tamondong's sole basis for this charge was Judge Pasal's Resolution dated December 23, 2013, which dismissed Henmar's petition for certiorari and prohibition. The issues raised by Atty. Tamondong regarding jurisdiction and prescription were judicial matters that could only be corrected through judicial remedies, not administrative proceedings. The Court reiterated that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for judicial errors when a judicial remedy exists. Judges cannot be held liable for their official acts, no matter how erroneous, if they act in good faith. Furthermore, Atty. Tamondong admitted to having already filed an appeal of Judge Pasal's Resolution before the Court of Appeals. Absent a showing that all available judicial remedies were exhausted, the Court could not inquire into Judge Pasal's administrative liability concerning the Resolution. The Court also emphasized that mere imputation of bias and partiality is insufficient, and bad faith cannot be inferred simply because a judgment is adverse to a party. On the charge of gross inefficiency and/or gross neglect of duty: The Court found Judge Pasal administratively liable for undue delay in resolving Henmar's Motion for Reconsideration. Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct mandates that judges perform their duties efficiently and with reasonable promptness. Under Rule 37, Section 4 of the Rules of Court, a motion for reconsideration must be resolved within thirty (30) days from submission. In this case, the motion was submitted for resolution on February 24, 2014, and the 30-day period expired on March 26, 2014. However, Judge Pasal issued his resolution only on June 17, 2014, 113 days later, without offering any explanation for the delay. This unexplained delay was deemed inexcusable, unwarranted, and unreasonable, constituting gross inefficiency and/or gross neglect of duty. The Court noted that if Judge Pasal needed more time, he should have requested an extension from the Court. The penalty for undue delay, as per Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, can be suspension or a fine. Considering Judge Pasal's service and the eventual resolution of the motion, a fine of ₱2,000.00 was deemed sufficient.
Main Doctrine
An administrative complaint is not the proper remedy for judicial errors that can be corrected through available judicial remedies. However, undue delay in resolving a motion for reconsideration constitutes gross inefficiency or neglect of duty.