A.M. No. MTJ-07-1688 - Mariano vs. Nacional

The case involves an administrative complaint against Judge Jose P. Nacional stemming from an ejectment action (Civil Case No. 12334).
The complaint arose after the judge issued a pre-trial order on September 3, 2004, requiring position papers and affidavits from the parties, which they complied with.
Subsequently, on December 28, 2004, the judge ordered the parties to submit memoranda in the form of a court decision, which the complainant argued violated the Revised Rules on Summary Procedure (RRSP).
The case was decided by the judge on February 14, 2005, which the complainant claimed was 136 days beyond the legally required timeframe.

The complainant alleged that the judge's actions constituted gross inefficiency, ignorance of the law, dereliction of duty, and violations of judicial conduct.
In his defense, the judge acknowledged exceeding the maximum period allowed under the RRSP and provided several justifications for his actions, including prioritizing the quality of his decision and citing a heavy caseload.

The Office of the Court Administrator (OCA) found that the judge violated procedural rules and the code of judicial conduct.
The OCA noted that the judge had a prior admonition for similar offenses, including gross ignorance of the law and dereliction of duty.
The OCA recommended a fine of P20,000 and a stern warning against future violations.

The RRSP explicitly prohibits the filing of memoranda in unlawful detainer cases, which was violated by the judge's December 28 order.
The urgency of resolving unlawful detainer cases is emphasized in the RRSP and the Rules of Court, mandating a judgment within 30 days after the required documents are submitted.
The Code of Judicial Conduct mandates judges to dispose of cases promptly and efficiently, which the judge failed to do.

The justifications provided by the judge for his delay were deemed unacceptable, as they undermined the procedural rules and respect for the law.
The court reiterated that judges cannot unilaterally extend deadlines and must formally request extensions if needed.
The failure to adhere to basic procedural rules constitutes gross ignorance of the law, regardless of the judge's intentions.

The judge's 24 years of service in the judiciary were argued as a mitigating factor; however, the court disagreed, stating that length of service does not excuse ignorance of procedural rules.
The court emphasized that competence and diligence are essential for the performance of judicial duties.

The court classified the judge's gross ignorance of the law and procedure as a serious charge, while violations of the Code of Judicial Conduct were considered less serious.
The admini...continue reading