Case Summary (A.M. No. 127-MJ)

Allegations Against the Respondent Judge

• Custodio Escabillas filed a sworn letter complaint against Municipal Judge Luis D. Martinez, alleging gross misconduct and ignorance of the law.
• The complaint centered on the judge's actions regarding the extension of a lease contract and failure to decide Civil Case No. 261 within the mandated 90-day period.
• Escabillas claimed that the judge's actions were in defiance of a prior court verdict and constituted unreasonable delay and incompetence.

Background of the Property Dispute

• Escabillas purchased two parcels of land from spouses Pedro N. de los Reyes and Beatriz Torrecampo on January 7, 1970.
• The properties were subject to a lease contract with the Bangayans, which had been upheld by a prior court decision.
• The Court of First Instance of Davao del Sur ruled that the lease contract expired on April 15, 1970, and directed the cancellation of the lease annotation on the title.

Court Orders and Subsequent Actions

• Following the court's directive, Escabillas and the former owners sought clarification on the lease's expiry and filed for cancellation of the lease encumbrance.
• The Court of First Instance issued an order confirming the lease's expiration and instructed Escabillas to file an action for illegal detainer against the Bangayans.
• Escabillas filed an unlawful detainer case, which was initially dismissed by the respondent judge as premature.

Developments in the Legal Proceedings

• The Supreme Court denied the Bangayans' petition for review, affirming the expiration of the lease.
• Escabillas subsequently filed Civil Case No. 261 for unlawful detainer, which was heard by the respondent judge.
• The judge rendered a decision on August 31, 1972, ordering the Bangayans to surrender the property to Escabillas after payment of specified amounts.

Evaluation of the Judge's Conduct

• Escabillas accused the judge of extending the expired lease contract, but the evaluation found no evidence supporting this claim.
• The judge's decision explicitly stated that he could not alter the terms of the lease due to the finality of the prior court order.
• The allegations of gross misconduct and ignorance of the law were deemed without merit.

Delay in Judicial Proceedings

• The judge was found to have violated the 90-day decision period mandated by Section 5, R.A. No. 296, as he took over five months to render a decision in Civil Case No. 261.
• The judge attributed the delay to the case'...continue reading