Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-23-039) Core Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
Rolly C. Castillo and fellow stallholders at the New Cubao Central Market in Cainta, Rizal, filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for a writ of preliminary injunction against Princeville Construction and Development Corporation and Engineer Alfred Figueras. The case was docketed as Civil Case No. 15-10803 and raffled to Branch 99 of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) in Antipolo City, presided over by Judge Miguel S. Asuncion. On April 1, 2016, Judge Asuncion held a hearing and ordered submission of memoranda within 15 days after the formal offer of evidence, after which the case would be deemed submitted for resolution. Plaintiff exhibits were admitted on February 12, 2016, and defendants’ on April 27, 2016. Plaintiffs submitted their memorandum on July 14, 2016, while defendants did not. Despite multiple motions filed by plaintiffs to reopen the hearing or prompt resolution, including several ex parte motions and a motion to transfer venue, Judge Asuncion failed to resolve
Case Digest (A.M. No. RTJ-23-039) Expanded Legal Reasoning Model
Facts:
- Parties and Complaint
- Complainant Rolly C. Castillo and other market stallholders filed a complaint for damages with a prayer for the issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction against Princeville Construction and Engineer Alfred Figueras.
- The complaint alleged forcible eviction from the New Cubao Central Market, Cainta, Rizal.
- The civil case No. 15-10803 was raffled to Branch 99, Regional Trial Court (RTC) Antipolo City, presided over by Judge Miguel S. Asuncion.
- Proceedings before Judge Asuncion
- On April 1, 2016, a hearing was conducted on the writ of preliminary injunction; Judge Asuncion ordered memoranda to be filed within 15 days from receipt of the court's ruling on the formal offer of evidence and declared the matter submitted thereafter.
- Separate orders dated February 12 and April 27, 2016 admitted plaintiffs’ and defendants’ exhibits.
- Plaintiffs filed their memorandum on July 14, 2016; defendants did not file any memorandum.
- Delay and Motions Filed by Plaintiffs
- On July 20, 2017, plaintiffs filed a Motion to Re-Open Hearing citing newly discovered evidence.
- Despite parties submitting pleadings, Judge Asuncion did not resolve their motions.
- Plaintiffs filed multiple ex-parte motions to resolve the writ of preliminary injunction between 2017 and 2018, a motion to transfer case in 2020, and a motion for inhibition.
- Administrative Complaint Against Judge Asuncion
- Castillo filed an administrative complaint charging Judge Asuncion with Dishonesty for certifying no pending matters to receive salary, and Gross Inefficiency for failure to resolve the preliminary injunction for 7 years.
- The Judicial Integrity Board (JIB) required Judge Asuncion to file verified comments and show cause why he should not be disciplined.
- Judge Asuncion submitted a comment in April 2023, citing heavy workload, pandemic-related duties, and multiple designations affecting his ability to resolve the case timely.
- Reports and Recommendations
- The Office of the Executive Director (OED) of JIB recommended:
- Judge Asuncion be found guilty of gross neglect of duty and fined PHP 250,000.
- Found guilty as a member of the Bar for violation of the Code of Professional Responsibility and fined PHP 18,000.
- Stern warning against repetition.
- The OED observed:
- Case should have been resolved within three months from submission (July 14, 2016).
- Actual resolution occurred only in April 2023 after 7 years delay.
- Delay was inexcusable; COVID-19 pandemic was not a valid reason since matter was submitted long before pandemic.
- The Judicial Integrity Board recommended a fine of PHP 400,000 plus stern warning for gross neglect of duty.
- Supreme Court Proceedings
- Issue: Whether Judge Asuncion is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty for the delay.
- The Court clarified that the complaint challenges only the delay in resolution, not the denial itself.
- The Court took into account constitutional mandates (Article VIII, Sec. 15) and codes of judicial conduct requiring prompt case resolution.
- The Court considered the timeline:
- Memorandum filed July 14, 2016,
- Case deemed submitted April 2016,
- Resolution issued April 11, 2023.
- Plaintiffs’ motions did not justify delay; motions were consistent with their prior relief requests.
- The COVID-19 pandemic did not excuse the delay since submission predates pandemic.
- Dishonesty Allegation
- Castillo’s allegation of dishonesty for Judge Asuncion's certification of no pending matters was unproven.
- Neither the OED nor JIB found merit to the dishonesty claim.
- Concurrence Opinion
- Justice Caguioa concurred with the penalty but emphasized the principle that not all administrative offenses involving judicial functions automatically merit parallel disciplinary actions as members of the Bar.
- He discussed jurisprudential precedents illustrating that liability as a judge does not necessarily equate to liability as a lawyer unless misconduct affects moral fitness or involves dishonesty.
- He reasoned that duplicative discipline in this case would be unfair as the charges stemmed solely from judicial duties.
Issues:
- Whether Judge Miguel S. Asuncion is guilty of Gross Neglect of Duty in the performance or non-performance of official functions by unduly delaying the resolution of the plaintiffs’ prayer for issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction in Civil Case No. 15-10803 for almost seven years.
- Whether Judge Asuncion is guilty of Dishonesty for certifying, in relation to receiving his salary, that he had no pending matters to resolve.
Ruling:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Ratio:
- (Subscriber-Only)
Doctrine:
- (Subscriber-Only)