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 Summary (A.M. No. MTJ-11-1792)

Background of the Complaint

The complaint arose from a small claims case, Civil Case No. ICSCC 09-65, titled E.Z. Orbe Tax Accounting Services v. L.G.M. Silver Star Credit Corporation, where Orbe represented his business. Following a failed attempt at an amicable settlement during a hearing on February 9, 2010, the trial was reassigned to Judge Gumarang. Several subsequent hearings were postponed primarily due to various reasons including a power interruption and the judge’s medical appointment.

Allegation of Delayed Decision

Orbe contended that Judge Gumarang's actions constituted a violation of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases, specifically the requirement to decide cases within five days from the order of reassignment. The hearing was postponed multiple times, and it took more than two months for a decision to be rendered.

Response from Judge Gumarang

In his comment submitted to the Office of the Court Administrator (OCA), Judge Gumarang acknowledged the delay in rendering a decision and indicated that the small claims cases he handles are scheduled only on Thursdays. He contended that the five-day period should be construed to refer exclusively to the Thursdays he utilizes for hearing small claims, thus arguing for a unique interpretation of the Rule.

Findings of the Office of the Court Administrator

The OCA found Judge Gumarang guilty of gross ignorance of the law, noting that his interpretation of the five-day rule was misplaced and contrary to the intention of the Rule of Procedure for Small Claims Cases. The OCA emphasized that the objective of the Rule was to facilitate quick and informal resolution of small claims to enhance access to justice.

Ruling on Judicial Delay

The Court affirmed the OCA's findings that Judge Gumarang significantly delayed the resolution of the case, which was contrary to the principles of quick and informal proceedings established under the Rules. It reiterated that the prescribed timeframe serves to prevent unnecessary delay in justice delivery and maintains public confidence in the judicial system.

Penalty Imposed

The Court determined that the nature of the delay, falling under Section 9 (1), Rul

...continue reading

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