Facts:

This case involves an administrative complaint against Judge Henry B. Avelino, who presides over the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pontevedra-Panay, Capiz. The complainants, Estanislao V. Alviola and his spouse Carmen L. Alviola, filed a civil case for unlawful detainer and damages against spouses Dullano and Theresa Suplido, originating from a complaint dated October 5, 2005. The case, docketed as Civil Case No. 405, was initiated by the complainants on September 24, 2002. Following the defendants' response on October 10, 2002, a pre-trial conference was scheduled for November 19, 2002, but after several postponements, the pre-trial actually occurred on August 26, 2004. Despite the termination of the pre-trial conference, Judge Avelino did not issue the required pre-trial order for over a year, leading the complainants to file multiple manifestations requesting action due to his inaction. Notably, the judge issued an Amend

...

Facts:

Administrative Complaint and Parties

• Complainant Estanislao V. Alviola filed an administrative complaint against Judge Henry B. Avelino of the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court of Pontevedra-Panay, Capiz.
• The complaint pertains to a civil case for unlawful detainer and damages, Civil Case No. 405, titled Estanislao V. Alviola and Carmen L. Alviola v. Dullano and Theresa Suplido.

Chronology and Handling of the Civil Case

• Initiation of the Civil Case
• The complaint was filed on September 24, 2002.
• Defendants filed their answer on October 10, 2002.
• Pre-Trial Conference Scheduling and Postponements
• The pre-trial conference was initially set for November 19, 2002.
• Multiple postponements occurred, with the pre-trial conference ultimately being conducted and terminated on August 26, 2004.
• Delay in Issuance of the Pre-Trial Order
• Despite the termination of the pre-trial conference, Judge Avelino failed to issue the required pre-trial order within the prescribed timeframe of ten (10) days according to the applicable rules.
• Earlier manifestations filed by the complainant in the judge’s sala did not prompt timely action from the judge.

Subsequent Developments and Motions

• Motion for Correction and Amended Pre-Trial Order
• On February 9, 2006, defendants filed a motion for correction of the pre-trial order.
• The judge granted the motion and subsequently issued an Amended Pre-Trial Order dated January 2, 2006 without following the required notice procedures stipulated under Section 4, Rule 15 of the 1997 Rules of Civil Procedure.
• Complainant’s Response
• On February 22, 2006, the complainant moved for the judge to reconsider his order granting the defendants’ motion for correction.

Judge’s Defense and Justifications

• Postponement Claims
• The judge stated that pre-trial conferences scheduled for November 19, 2002, and January 2, 2003 were postponed at the instance of the parties for potential settlement.
• Further postponements occurred when defendants’ counsel moved to suspend proceedings in deference to a related annulment/cancellation case pending before the Regional Trial Court of Roxas City, Capiz.
• Docket Management
• Judge Avelino admitted that the delay in issuing the pre-trial order was a consequence of his decision to prioritize other cases that were required to be terminated before December 30, 2005 pursuant to A.M. No. 05-8-26-SC.

Findings by the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA)

• OCA Report
• Dated April 25, 2006, the OCA report found Judge Avelino guilty of violating Paragraph 8, Title I (A) of A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC, which mandates the issuance of the pre-trial order within ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial conference.
• The report noted that the judge issued the pre-trial order on January 2, 2005 – more than four (4) months after the pre-trial conference terminated.
• OCA Recommendation
• The report recommended that the case be formally docketed as an administrative complaint.
• It further recommended the suspension of Judge Avelino from office without salary and benefits for two (2) months.

Resolution Process

• On June 21, 2006, the Court directed the parties to manifest their willingness to resolve the matter based on the existing pleadings and records.
• Both parties manifested their willingness to resolve the complaint on the basis of the pleadings, leading to the Court’s decision in this matter.

Contextual Observations

• Nature of the Case
• The civil case at issue is an unlawful detainer case which falls under the Rules on Summary Procedure, emphasizing prompt action.
• The purpose of the Rules on Summary Procedure is to prevent undue delays in case disposition.
• Prior Disciplinary History
• Judge Avelino had previously been fined P20,000.00 in separate administrative cases (A.M. No. MTJ-05-1583 and MTJ-05-1606) for acts of gross inefficiency.

Issue:

Neglect of Duty

• Whether the delay in issuing the pre-trial order by Judge Avelino constitutes gross neglect of duty.
• Whether the failure to issue the order within the mandated ten (10) days after the termination of the pre-trial conference violated the administrative guidelines established in A.M. No. 03-1-09-SC.

Procedural and Substantive Fairness

• Whether the judge’s issuance of an amended pre-trial order without the required notice and opportunity for the complainant to file a comment constitutes a breach of procedural due process.
• Whether the justifications provided by the judge regarding docket management and postponements withstand scrutiny considering the need for prompt resolution in unlawful detainer cases.

Impact on the Case

• Whether the delay adversely affected the efficient administration of justice, particularly given the nature of summary proceedings designed to expedite case disposition.

Adequacy of Sanction

• Whether a two-month suspension is an appropriate penalty in light of both the current violation and the judge’s prior disciplinary record.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)