A.M. No. RTJ-16-2460 - Tacorda vs. Cabrera-Faller

Complainants: Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda and Leticia Rodrigo-Dumdum.
Respondents: Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller and Ophelia G. Suluen of Branch 90, Regional Trial Court, Dasmariñas City, Cavite.
Alleged Offenses: Gross Ignorance of the Law, Gross Inefficiency, Delay in the Administration of Justice, and Impropriety.

The complaint stemmed from Civil Case No. 398810 entitled “Sunny S. Salvilla, Kevin S. Salvilla, and Justin S. Salvilla v. Spouses Edwin Dumdum and Leticia R. Dumdum.”
Originally pending before Judge Fernando L. Felicen (Branch 20, RTC, Imus, Cavite).
On October 2, 2012, Judge Felicen issued an order requiring submission of pre-trial briefs and set a pre-trial hearing for February 5, 2013.
On January 16, 2013, Judge Felicen inhibited himself thereby prompting the case’s raffle to Judge Cabrera-Faller’s sala at Branch 90, RTC, Dasmariñas City, Cavite.

After receipt of the case records, Judge Cabrera-Faller scheduled a clarificatory hearing initially set on March 19, 2013, later rescheduled to May 22, 2013 due to her seminar attendance.
Pre-trial hearings were similarly rescheduled with initial dates on August 14 and 29, 2013.
It was discovered that the case had already been referred for mediation, leading the court to suspend proceedings pending the receipt of the Mediator’s Report.
The Mediator’s Report was received on September 18, 2013.
The plaintiffs belatedly filed their Pre-Trial Brief on August 27, 2013, prompting the Spouses Dumdum (through Atty. Tacorda) to file a Motion to Expunge the Plaintiffs’ Pre-Trial Brief on September 3, 2013.

On July 31, 2015, nearly two years after the Motion was filed, Judge Cabrera-Faller denied the motion.
A pre-trial conference was scheduled on October 8, 2015, but later rescheduled to November 18, 2015 due to Judge Cabrera-Faller’s hospitalization on the original date.
The complainants filed the present complaint citing prolonged inaction and lack of timely resolution regarding the motion to expunge, alleging gross inefficiency and delay in justice administration.

Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen filed a Comment denying the allegations, asserting:

No gross ignorance of the law, as actions were taken promptly upon receipt of the records.
No gross inefficiency or delay, contending that the resetting of hearings was part of ordinary court procedures and that mediation was a valid factor contributing to delays.

They further argued the complaint was baseless and aimed at disqualifying Judge Cabrera-Faller from other proceedings involving Atty. Tacorda.
Complainants, in reply, characterized the respondents’ assertions as self-serving and unsubstantiated.

The allegations of gross ignorance of the law were not supported by evidence.
There was no conduct by the respondents amounting to impropriety in the performance of their official duties or as private individuals.
Judge Cabrera-Faller was guilty of gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice due to her prolonged inaction from May 22, 2013, until July 31, 2015.

The failure to act on the Motion to Expunge within a reasonable time was a clear violation of the Constitution and Code of Judicial Ethics.
Judge Cabrera-Faller’s inability to account for what transpired in 2014 underscored an attempt to conceal inaction.
No evidence linked Suluen to any administrative liability since her role did not extend to resolving pending judicial matters.

Imposition of a fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos (P20,000.00) on Judge Cabrera-Faller, payable within thirty (30) days, along with a warning regarding potential harsher penalties for similar offenses in the future.
Dismissal of charges against Suluen for lack of merit.

Whether the actions (or inactions) of Judge Cabrera-Faller constitute gross ignorance of the law, given the allegations raised by the complainants.

Assessment of whether any error was so gross and patent to infer bad faith must be made.
Examination of the absence of evidence regarding bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption.

Whether Judge Cabrera-Faller exhibited gross inefficiency and a delay in the administration of justice through her handling of the pending motion to expunge the Pre-Trial Brief.

Consideration of the nearly two-year delay from the filing of the motion to its resolution.
Evaluation of whether the delay amounted to a denial of justice and a violation of judicial promptness standards.

Whether there is merit in holding Suluen, as the Officer-in-Charge/Legal Researcher II, liable for the alleged administrative deficiencies.

Determining the scope of responsibility of an OIC/Legal Researcher regarding pending judicial matters.
Considering the respondents’ argument that Suluen’s role did not encompass decision making or acting on pending matters.

Whether the procedural resets and the referral of the case for mediation can be construed as acceptable judicial practices or constitute grounds for complaint.

Analyzing the impact of rescheduling due to court events (e.g., seminars, hospitalization) on the final resolution of the motion.
Reviewing if mediation inherently justifies delay in proceedings.