Title
Orbe vs. Gumarang
Case
A.M. No. MTJ-11-1792
Decision Date
Sep 26, 2011
Judge Gumarang delayed a small claims case, violating the 5-day rule, leading to a P5,000 fine for gross ignorance of the law.

Case Digest (A.M. No. MTJ-11-1792)
Expanded Legal Reasoning Model

Facts:

  • Parties Involved:
    • Complainant: Ernesto Z. Orbe (plaintiff in a small claims case).
    • Respondent: Judge Manolito Y. Gumarang, Pairing Judge, Municipal Trial Court (MTC), Imus, Cavite.
  • Case Background:
    • Orbe filed a small claims case (Civil Case No. ICSCC 09-65) against L.G.M. Silver Star Credit Corporation before the MTC of Imus, Cavite, presided by Judge Emily A. Geluz.
    • On February 9, 2010, the parties failed to reach an amicable settlement, and the case was reassigned to Judge Gumarang for trial.
  • Postponements and Delays:
    • The hearing scheduled for March 4, 2010, was postponed to March 11, 2010, due to a power interruption.
    • On March 11, 2010, the hearing was reset to March 25, 2010, because Judge Gumarang had a medical check-up.
    • On March 25, 2010, another Judicial Dispute Resolution (JDR) was conducted, but the hearing was again reset to April 15, 2010, due to the parties' failure to reach an agreement.
  • Violation Alleged:
    • Orbe alleged that Judge Gumarang violated the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases by failing to decide the case within five (5) days from receipt of the order of reassignment.
  • Respondent’s Defense:
    • Judge Gumarang admitted the delay but argued that he hears small claims cases only on Thursdays. He contended that the five (5) working days should refer to five (5) calendared trial dates falling on Thursdays.
  • OCA’s Findings:
    • The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found Judge Gumarang guilty of Gross Ignorance of the Law and recommended a fine of P5,000.00.

Issues:

  • Whether Judge Gumarang violated the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases by failing to decide the case within five (5) days from receipt of the order of reassignment.
  • Whether Judge Gumarang’s interpretation of the five (5)-day period as referring only to Thursdays is valid.
  • Whether Judge Gumarang’s actions constitute Gross Ignorance of the Law and Undue Delay in Rendering a Decision.

Ruling:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Ratio:

  • (Subscriber-Only)

Analyze Cases Smarter, Faster
Jur helps you analyze cases smarter to comprehend faster—building context before diving into full texts.