Facts:

• Renato Alvaro Ruperto filed a complaint against Judge Tirso F. Banquerigo of the Municipal Circuit Trial Court (MCTC) of Tayasan Jimmalud, Negros Oriental.
• Judge Banquerigo was also the presiding judge of the MCTC, Bindoy-Ayungon-Manjuyod.
• The complaint, dated August 6, 1998, accused Judge Banquerigo of ignorance of the law, malicious prosecution, grave abuse of discretion, and malicious delay in the administration of justice.
• The case stemmed from a civil suit for ejectment with damages filed by Ruperto against the spouses Anselmo and Pacita Mojillo on August 2, 1995, docketed as Civil Case No. A-178.
• The Mojillo spouses failed to file their answer within the reglementary period, leading Ruperto to file a motion on September 1, 1995, for a summary decision under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• Judge Banquerigo did not act on the motion and instead granted the Mojillo spouses an additional ten days to file their answer.
• The case was set for hearing on December 14, 1995, and later reset to March 14, 1996.
• Ruperto claimed that Judge Banquerigo's failure to promptly decide the case constituted a delay in the administration of justice and grave abuse of discretion.
• Ruperto also accused Judge Banquerigo of malicious prosecution for issuing a warrant for his arrest on February 26, 1990, for qualified theft, which was later dismissed by the Regional Trial Court of Dumaguete City on March 13, 1991, due to lack of criminal intent.
• Judge Banquerigo defended himself by citing his multiple assignments and the high volume of cases as reasons for the delay and denied any malicious intent in issuing the arrest warrant.

Issue:

• (Unlock)

Ruling:

1. Judge Tirso F. Banquerigo was found accountable for failing to act promptly on the civil case, violating the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. He was severely reprimanded with a stern warning for future conduct.
2. The charge of malicious prosecution against Judge Banquer...(Unlock)

Ratio:

• The Supreme Court held that Judge Banquerigo failed to comply with the judicial duty required under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• The court emphasized that the judge's failure to act on the motion to decide the case summarily, despite the Mojillo spouses' failure to file an answer within the reglementary period, constituted ignorance of the law and a disservice to the cause of justice.
• The court cited the case of Rural Bank of Malalag, Inc. vs. Maniwang, which established that a judge is remiss in his duties when he fails to decide a case covered by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure after the defendants fail to file their answers.
• However, the court acknowledged that Judge Banquerigo's multiple assignm...continue reading