Facts:

The case involves a complaint filed by Atty. Virgilio P. Alconera against Judge Jose S. Majaducon, the Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, General Santos City. The complaint, dated April 27, 2005, alleges gross ignorance of the law and/or grave misconduct. The origins of the complaint trace back to a forcible entry case filed by the complainant on March 13, 1997, on behalf of Dioscoro Bactol and Elizabeth Bactol Viquiera against Faustino Labao. The case was assigned to Judge Majaducon's sala, and summons was served to Labao on April 4, 1997. Labao filed an unverified answer on April 19, 1997, which was beyond the ten-day period mandated by the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Despite this, Judge Majaducon accepted the late answer and proceeded to set a preliminary conference. The plaintiffs subsequently filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that Labao's late and unverified answer should be considered as a failure to f...

Facts:

Background of the Complaint

• Atty. Virgilio P. Alconera filed a complaint for gross ignorance of the law or procedure and/or grave misconduct against Judge Jose S. Majaducon, then Presiding Judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities (MTCC), Branch 1, General Santos City.
• The complaint originated from an earlier case involving a forcible entry with a prayer for a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, damages, and attorney’s fees, filed on March 13, 1997, on behalf of Dioscoro Bactol and Elizabeth Bactol Viquiera against Faustino Labao.

Proceedings in the Underlying Forcible Entry Case

• The case was assigned to the respondent’s sala.
• Summons was served on the defendant on April 4, 1997.
• On April 19, 1997, defendant Labao filed an unverified answer well beyond the ten-day period prescribed by the 1991 Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• Despite the tardiness and lack of verification, Judge Majaducon admitted Labao’s answer and set the case for preliminary conferences.
• Preliminary conferences were held on April 28, May 21, and May 26, 1997.
• On May 26, 1997, even though Labao was absent, the conference proceeded with the judge giving a non-extendible period of 15 days to submit position papers along with evidence.
• At the same conference, Labao was advised that he could move for reconsideration within ten days regarding the submission of additional documentary evidence.
• Subsequent Pleadings and Motions
• On June 9, 1997, the plaintiffs filed their position paper.
• Defendant Labao, via counsel, later filed a “Motion to File Answer through Counsel.”
• Judge Majaducon granted the motion and directed Labao to file his position paper; however, Labao failed to submit either his position paper or his answer.
• Decision on the Forcible Entry Case
• On October 9, 1997, the case was declared submitted for decision.
• On November 3, 1997, Judge Majaducon rendered a decision in favor of Labao and dismissed the complaint.

Initiation and Handling of the Administrative Complaint

• A little over a month after the dismissal of the forcible entry case, complainant Atty. Alconera filed an administrative complaint against Judge Majaducon for gross ignorance of the law and/or grave misconduct.
• The basis of the complaint centered on the judge’s manifest bias, notably his failure to enforce the stringent provisions of the summary procedure rules and his multiple allowances for late pleadings by defendant Labao.
• On May 7, 1998, the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) referred the verified complaint to Judge Majaducon, requiring him to answer within ten days.
• In his answer, Judge Majaducon refuted the charge of bias by asserting that his decision was based on evidence showing that Labao was in prior possession of the land.
• He explained his inaction on the motion for summary judgment by referencing a motion filed by Atty. Johnny Landero.
• Notably, he did not address the alleged violation of the procedure under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• The OCA recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter and proposed a fine of P10,000 for gross ignorance of the law.
• The case was subsequently handled by the judiciary’s administrative process:
• Initially referred to Executive Judge Abednego O. Adre, who was later reassigned, whereupon it was referred to Associate Justice Juan Enriquez.
• During the proceedings, complainant attempted to withdraw the complaint and move for dismissal; however, due to the sui generis nature of administrative cases, the request was not favorably acted upon.
• Additional Developments
• Judge Majaducon retired on February 24, 2002, upon reaching the compulsory retirement age of 70.
• On July 8, 2002, the Third Division of the Court, dealing with his retirement benefits, set aside P100,000 due to several pending administrative cases.
• On October 10, 2003, Justice Enriquez submitted his report recommending that Judge Majaducon be fined P20,000 for gross ignorance of the law or procedure under Section 8 (gross ignorance of the law or procedure) of the Rules on Discipline of Judges.

Structure of the Issues Raised by the Complaint

• The primary issue centered on whether Judge Majaducon was guilty of gross ignorance of the law or procedure in handling the summary proceeding.
• A secondary issue was whether the withdrawal of charges by the complainant constituted a valid ground for dismissal of the case.
• The record revealed that judge’s actions—admitting late pleadings, granting undue extensions, and generally bending procedural rules—were contrary to the intended summary nature and strict timelines mandated by the rules.

Issue:

• Whether Judge Jose S. Majaducon committed gross ignorance of the law or procedure in the handling of the underlying summary proceeding.
• Whether the complainant’s subsequent withdrawal of charges could be considered a valid ground for the dismissal of the administrative case.
• Whether the respondent’s admittance of untimely filings and granting of extensions contravened the mandatory provisions of the summary procedure rules.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)