SECOND DIVISION
[A.M. No. MTJ-99-1240. December 21, 1999]
ATTY. PATRICK JUAN PEREZ, complainant, vs. JUDGE IGNACIO R. CONCEPCION, MTC – Calasiao, Pangasinan, respondent.
D E C I S I O N
BUENA,
J.:
The administrative matter
at bench stems from a sworn letter-complaint dated 09 March 1998 filed by
complainant-lawyer Patrick Juan C. Perez charging herein respondent Judge
Ignacio R. Concepcion with gross inefficiency and manifest partiality amounting
grave misconduct relative to the handling of Criminal Case Nos. 70-96 and 71-96
for slight physical injuries entitled, “People vs. Joseph M. Terrado” and
Criminal Case No. 75-96 for grave slander by deed entitled, “People vs. Patrick
Juan Perez”.
In Criminal Case Nos.
70-96 and 71-96 both of which fall under the Rules on Summary Procedure, herein
complainant charged accused Joseph M. Terrado with slight physical injuries
before the Municipal Trial Court of Binmaley Pangasinan, where respondent acted
as judge designate. On 03 October 1996,
respondent judge issued an order requiring accused Terrado to appear before the
court and submit his counter-affidavit within ten days from receipt thereof.
On 17 October 1996,
accused Terrado filed an Urgent Motion for Extension of Time to Submit
Counter-affidavit. In an order[1] of the same date, respondent judge granted
the motion “in the interest of justice”, although fully cognizant that said
motion is prohibited under the Rules on Summary Procedure.
Moreover, in an order[2] dated 09 January 1997, respondent judge
granted accused Terrado’s request to file a motion to quash. On 11 February 1997, respondent judge,
issued an order[3] in Criminal Case Nos. 70-96 and 71-96,
declaring that the motion to quash and the opposition thereto filed by Terrado
and Perez respectively, are deemed submitted for resolution. In spite of said order, respondent judge
failed to resolve said incident even after the lapse of one year from the time
of issuance of the order.
In Criminal Case No.
76-96, respondent judge nonetheless gave due course to the countercharge of
slight physical injuries filed by Terrado against Eduardo Tagulao and Dr. Eric
Jose C. Perez, the latter being a brother of herein complainant. Likewise, records reveal that the subpoena
issued to the parties in Criminal Case No. 76-96 was signed on behalf of
respondent judge by Court Interpreter Sonio Merrera Torio who is related to
Terrado and the latter’s counsel.
In his letter-complaint,
herein complainant Perez asserts that respondent judge was guilty of partiality
and "amply demonstrated his more than willing attitude to accommodate the
accused Joseph M. Terrado and his counsel Atty. Arsenio Merrera.”[4]
On 27 January 1998,
respondent judge, in Criminal Case No. 75-96, ordered the issuance of a warrant
of arrest against herein complainant and fixed the bailbond at P2,000.00.[5]
On 07 July 1998, respondent
judge filed his Comment[6] on the letter-complaint averring that
although a Motion for Extension of Time to File Counter-affidavit is a
prohibited pleading under the Rules on Summary Procedure, he nonetheless
granted the same “in the interest of justice.”
On 01 February 1999,
respondent judge compulsorily retired from the judicial service.
In a Report[7] dated 04 August 1999, the Office of the
Court Administrator (OCAD) recommended that a fine of P30,000.00 be
imposed on respondent on the ground of gross inefficiency for violating the
Revised Rules on Summary Procedure.
We find respondent judge
guilty of the charge of gross inefficiency.
The rule on this matter
is crystalline. Thus, Section 19 of the
1991 Revised Rules on Summary Procedure explicitly provides:
“Section 19. Prohibited Pleadings and Motions. The following pleadings shall not be allowed in the cases covered by this Rule:
a) Motion to dismiss the complaint or to quash the complaint or information except on the ground of lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter, or failure to comply with the preceding section; X X X
b) Motion for extension of
time to file pleadings, affidavits or any other paper; X X X”
Certainly, even a cursory
reading of the Rules would readily show that a Motion to Quash and a Motion for
Extension of Time to File a Counter-affidavit are prohibited motions and thus
should not have been allowed or entertained by respondent in the subject cases.
Respondent’s violation of
the Rules is aggravated by the fact that the same was carried out in a
deliberate, conscious and intentional manner.
In his Order, respondent expressly stated that he knew of the
prohibition against the filing of said motions in cases falling under the Rules
on Summary Procedure. Regardless,
respondent invokes equity to justify his action.
To our mind, however, his
proffered explanation does not suffice to absolve him from administrative
liability. For elementary is the rule
that when laws or rules are clear, as in the instant case, it is incumbent upon
respondent to apply them regardless of personal belief and predilections. To put it differently, when the law is
unambiguous and unequivocal, application and not interpretation thereof is
imperative.
In fine, by allowing the
filing of such prohibited motions, respondent judge evidently manifested gross
inefficiency and overtly transgressed basic mandatory rules adopted to ensure
the expeditious resolution of cases.
Further, we do not
subscribe to respondent’s excuse of having a heavy caseload so as to exonerate
him from liability for the delay in the resolution of the pending motion to
quash.
To reiterate, delay in
resolving motions and incidents pending before a judge within the reglementary
period of ninety (90) days fixed by the Constitution and the law, is not
excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency.[8]
Similarly, respondent
judge failed to observe Rule 3.05, Canon 3 of the Code of Judicial Conduct
which mandates that a magistrate shall dispose of the court’s business promptly
and decide cases within the required periods.
WHEREFORE, in view of the foregoing, the Court finds
respondent judge guilty of gross inefficiency and hereby imposes upon him a
fine of P10,000.00 to be deducted from his retirement benefits.
SO ORDERED.
Bellosillo (Chairman),
Mendoza, Quisumbing, and De Leon, Jr., JJ., concur.