Cabahug v. Dacanay
REITERATIONFacts
The Antecedents: Trinidad Cabahug (complainant) charged Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay with undue delay in resolving her motion for reconsideration dated September 18, 2001, filed in Civil Case No. 217. This case involved the recovery of possession of real property and damages, where complainant's husband had obtained a favorable judgment that became final and executory on February 17, 2000. Despite the execution of the judgment, the defendant's wife allegedly encroached upon the property, leading complainant to file a motion to cite her in contempt, which was denied by the MTC on August 24, 2001. Procedural History: Complainant filed a motion for reconsideration of the denial of her contempt motion on September 19, 2001. The defendant opposed this motion on November 22, 2001. Complainant alleged that her motion for reconsideration remained unresolved. Respondent Judge Dacanay, in his comment, stated that he advised complainant to see the Clerk of Court to schedule a hearing. The Clerk of Court provided tentative dates, but complainant did not return. Her counsel later withdrew, and she requested a deferment to find a new counsel. On June 19, 2002, the respondent judge issued an order setting the hearing for July 12, 2002. On July 1, 2002, complainant filed a motion for inhibition. She failed to appear at the July 12, 2002 hearing, leading to the denial of both her motion for reconsideration and her motion for inhibition. The Petition: The Court Administrator, after reviewing the case, found respondent judge guilty of gross inefficiency and recommended a fine of P5,000.00. The Court Administrator noted that the motion for reconsideration was deemed submitted on November 22, 2001, but the judge only issued an order denying it after 231 days, far exceeding the 90-day reglementary period. The Court Administrator rejected the judge's explanation that the delay was due to the complainant's failure to set a hearing, stating that a hearing was unnecessary and the judge could have acted on the motion without it. The Court Administrator also pointed out that the judge's order setting the hearing was unclear and might have been a cover-up for the delay. The Supreme Court required the respondent judge to submit a copy of his July 12, 2002 Order, which he did, along with a manifestation to submit the case for resolution.
Issue(s)
Whether respondent Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay is guilty of undue delay in resolving complainant's motion for reconsideration. Whether the explanation provided by the respondent judge for the delay is sufficient to exculpate him from administrative liability.
Ruling
The respondent Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay is found GUILTY of undue delay in resolving a motion. He is FINED in the amount of Eleven Thousand (P11,000.00) Pesos and WARNED that a repetition of the same offense will be dealt with more severely.
Ratio Decidendi
On Issue 1: The respondent Judge Jasper Jesse G. Dacanay is guilty of undue delay in resolving complainant's motion for reconsideration. It is undisputed that the motion was deemed submitted for resolution on November 22, 2001, upon the filing of the defendant's opposition. However, the respondent judge only resolved the motion on July 12, 2002, after an undue delay of 231 days, which significantly exceeds the 90-day reglementary period mandated by the Constitution and law. This failure to decide within the prescribed period constitutes gross inefficiency. On Issue 2: The explanation provided by the respondent judge for the delay is insufficient to exculpate him from administrative liability. The judge's assertion that the delay was attributable to the complainant's failure to choose a hearing date is without merit. The Court Administrator correctly pointed out that there was no necessity to set the motion for reconsideration for hearing, as it could have been acted upon by the respondent judge without prejudicing the defendant's rights, especially since the opposition had already been filed. Furthermore, the judge's order setting the hearing was unclear and could be inferred as a mere attempt to cover up his delay. The judge's claim that he resolved the motion on July 12, 2002, by denying it due to 'no new matters/issues' further supports the conclusion that a hearing was unnecessary and his delay was inexcusable.
Main Doctrine
Undue delay in resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary period of ninety (90) days constitutes gross inefficiency and is a less serious offense punishable under Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court. Judges are admonished to promptly dispose of their court's business, and any failure to do so, without valid justification, warrants administrative sanctions.