Facts:

The case at hand involves complaints filed against Judge Henry B. Avelino of the 2nd Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Pontevedra-Panay, Capiz, initiated by Manuel B. Arcenas on March 11, 2005. Arcenas, acting as the attorney-in-fact for Demetrio and Leah Arcenas, plaintiffs in Civil Case No. 391 for Unlawful Detainer and Damages, accused Judge Avelino of gross inefficiency for his failure to decide on the ejectment case within the mandated thirty (30) days. The defendant spouses, Manolo and Rosemarie Amador, had been served with summons but failed to file their answer within the ten (10) day period. In response to the absence of an answer from the defendants, Judge Avelino, on June 21, 2001, issued an order directing the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) to conduct a relocation survey related to a 20-meter reservation for public easement as specified in the property’s Transfer Certificate of Title No. T-21277. Following that, further orders were issue

Facts:

• In the present case, Manuel B. Arcenas, acting as attorney-in-fact for Demetrio and Leah Arcenas, charged Judge Henry B. Avelino with gross inefficiency for failing to render judgment within the stipulated thirty (30) days under the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure in an ejectment case.
• The background of the case involves an unlawful detainer and damages action where the defendants—spouses Manolo and Rosemarie Amador—failed to answer the summons.
• On 21 June 2001 and 22 August 2001, Judge Avelino issued orders directing the DENR and later the DPWH (in coordination with the DENR) to conduct surveys to ascertain the precise location of the twenty meters public easement reservation noted on plaintiffs’ Transfer Certificate of Title.
• Despite obtaining survey reports and even conducting an independent ocular inspection on 18 June 2003, the judge repeatedly delayed action. Plaintiffs’ motions to render judgment on 17 November 2003 and 16 March 2004 went unheeded until nearly three (3) years had elapsed from the time he acknowledged the defendants’ failure to answer.
• Judge Avelino explained that his delay was caused by the need to clarify the extent of the public easement – noting concerns that if the defendants’ house fell within it, immediate ruling would exceed his authority. He further cited operational challenges such as an excessive workload and lack of available typewriters.
• Ultimately, although he rendered judgment on 07 May 2004 and transmitted the records to the clerk of court, the protracted delay led to an administrative complaint and subsequent disciplinary proceedings.

Issue:

• Whether Judge Avelino’s failure to render judgment within the thirty (30) day period prescribed by the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure constitutes gross inefficiency.
• Whether the judge’s justifications—seeking external surveys, conducting a personal inspection, and citing workload constraints—are acceptable grounds for the protracted delay.
• Whether his deviation from the mandatory procedural timeline and established clarificatory process under Section 10 of the Rules on Summary Procedure warrants administrative sanctions.

Ruling:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

• (Subscriber-Only)

Doctrine:

• (Subscriber-Only)