Estanislao v. Avelino
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Complainant Estanislao V. Alviola filed an administrative complaint against respondent Judge Henry B. Avelino for gross neglect of duty concerning Civil Case No. 405, an unlawful detainer and damages case. The complaint alleged that the civil case was filed on September 24, 2002, and after the defendants filed their answer on October 10, 2002, the pre-trial conference was set for November 19, 2002. However, the pre-trial conference was only conducted and terminated on August 26, 2004, and more than a year later, no pre-trial order had been issued by the respondent judge, despite a manifestation filed by the complainant. Procedural History: The complainant further alleged that on February 9, 2006, he received a copy of the defendants' motion for correction of the pre-trial order, dated February 6, 2006. He also manifested that the respondent judge granted this motion and issued an Amended Pre-trial Order dated January 2, 2006, without prior notice to the complainant or affording him an opportunity to file a comment. Consequently, the complainant filed a motion for reconsideration on February 22, 2006. The Petition: The administrative complaint was filed by Estanislao V. Alviola against Judge Henry B. Avelino, alleging gross neglect of duty for the undue delay in issuing a pre-trial order and for issuing an amended pre-trial order without notice and hearing. The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) recommended that the respondent judge be suspended for two months. The Court directed the parties to manifest their willingness to submit the case for resolution on the basis of the pleadings filed, to which both parties agreed.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Henry B. Avelino committed gross neglect of duty for undue delay in issuing a pre-trial order. Whether respondent Judge Henry B. Avelino committed undue delay in rendering an order, which is a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court.
Ruling
The Court found respondent Judge Henry B. Avelino liable for undue delay in rendering a pre-trial order. He is hereby SUSPENDED from office without salary and other benefits for a period of TWO (2) MONTHS, effective immediately upon service of this Resolution. He is STERNLY WARNED that a repetition of the same or similar act shall be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The Court found that respondent Judge Henry B. Avelino committed undue delay in issuing the pre-trial order. Paragraph 8, Title I (A) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC mandates that judges issue the required Pre-Trial Order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial conference. In this case, the pre-trial conference was terminated on August 26, 2004, but the pre-trial order was issued only on January 2, 2005, which is more than four months later. This delay is a clear violation of the rule. Furthermore, the civil case was an unlawful detainer case, which falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure, requiring promptness and haste in its disposition. The judge's inaction occasioned the delay that the rule seeks to prevent, thus undermining the aim of speedy disposition of cases. On Issue 2: The Court classified the respondent judge's act as undue delay in rendering an order, which is a less serious charge under Section 9 (1), Rule 140, as amended, of the Revised Rules of Court. This offense is punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one (1) nor more than three (3) months, or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00. Considering the respondent judge's previous infractions for gross inefficiency, where he was fined P20,000.00 in two separate cases (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1583 and A.M. No. MTJ-05-1606), the Court agreed with the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) that a sterner penalty was warranted. The penalty of two months suspension was deemed appropriate given the circumstances and the judge's prior disciplinary record.
Main Doctrine
Judges are strictly required to issue pre-trial orders within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial conference, as stipulated in A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC. Undue delay in rendering such orders is classified as a less serious charge under Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, punishable by suspension or fine, and this duty is particularly critical in cases falling under the Rules on Summary Procedure where promptness is essential.