SPOUSES RICARDO and EVELYN MARCELO vs JUDGE DOMINGO PICHAY

A.M. No. MTJ-13-1838; Mar 12, 2014

J. Perlas-Bernabe

DOCTRINE: Failure to decide a case within the reglementary period is not excusable
and constitutes gross inefficiency warranting the imposition of administrative sanctions
on the defaulting judge.

FACTS: The present case stemmed from an unlawful detainer case filed by
complainants Spouses Marcelo against Spouses Magopoy which was pending before
Judge Pichay of MeTC, Paraaque City. A Joint Decision was released by Judge
Pichay ordering Spouses Magopoy to vacate and surrender the possession of the
property to Spouses Marcelo. A writ of execution was issued and later implemented by
Sheriff Espres, thus, Spouses Marcelo obtained the possession of the property.
However, 6:00pm on the same day, Spouses Magopoy reentered the property and
regained its possession. As such, Spouses Marcelo moved to cite Spouses Magopoy in
contempt for disobedience to lawful court processes. In an Order by MeTC, defendants
were not cited in contempt but was instead ordered to surrender the property to
Spouses Marcelo within 10 days. Spouses Marcelo filed an Ex Parte Constancia
because of the continued refusal of defendants to surrender the property, which
prompted Judge Pichay to issue and Order directing the Sheriff to execute the eviction
within 3 days. A Motion for Reconsideration was filed by defendants, which was
opposed by complainants. During the hearing, Spouses Magopoy were directed to file
their Reply with Supplemental Motion to which they complied. However, instead of
resolving the case, Judge Pichay directed Spouses Marcelo to file their comment
regarding the motion within 5 days and after which the court will resolve the pending
incidents. Spouses Marcelo failed to file their comment, nonetheless, Judge Pichay set
the motion for hearing.

Disappointed with Judge Pichays continuous inaction, Spouses Marcelo filed an

administrative complaint before the Office of the Court Administrator charging him and
Sheriff Epress with inordinate delay in the disposition of the pending incidents in relation
to the implementation of the writ of execution of the decision.

In defense, Judge Pichay told that the delay was due to the new arguments raised in
the supplemental motion which may change the situation of the parties, hence, the
execution of the decision would be inequitable. In the interest of justice and equity,
Judge Pichay schedule a hearing for the Supplemental Motion which however was reset
due to the request of complainant and because Judge Pichay went on a leave.

OCA, through a Memorandum, recommended Judge Pichay be held administratively

liable for undue delay in the resolution of the pending incidents in relation to the
execution of the decision. Moreover, a fine of 10,000 for the infraction. OCA found that
Judge Pichay entertained dilatory machinations that resulted in the delay of the
implementation of the writ of execution, while the case against Sheriff Epress be
dismissed.

ISSUE: Whether or not Judge Pichay should be held administratively liable for undue
delay in the resolution of the pending incidents.

HELD: The Court concurs with the recommendation of OCA subject to modification
regarding the penalty.

The Constitution requires our courts to observe the time periods in deciding cases and
resolving matters brought to their adjudication, in case of lower courts, 3 mos. from the
date they are deemed submitted for decision or resolution. In consonance with that, Sec
5, Canon 6 of New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary provides that
Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions,
efficiently fairly and with reasonable promptness. Noncompliance with the periods
prescribed constitutes gross inefficiency and warrants the imposition of administrative
sanctions against the defaulting judge. While trial court judges are often burdened with
heavy case loads, they are given the option to, for good reasons, ask for an extension
of the period within which to resolve a particular case or any pending incident therein.

As observed in the case at bar, Judge Pichay failed to resolve the subject motions
within the 3 month period prescribed therefor. The matter had already been submitted
for Resolution but Judge Pichay continued with the proceedings by setting the motions
for hearing to the effect of unreasonably delaying the execution of the subject decision.
Judge Pichay did not sufficiently explain the reasons as to why he failed to resolve the
matter on time, as well as why he still had to set the same for hearing and grant
postponements despite the summary nature of ejectment proceedings and the
ministerial nature of the subsequent issuance of a writ of execution.

Pursuant to Sec 9, Rule 140 of ROC, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is
considered as less serious offense which is punishable by either: (a) suspension from
office without salary and other benefits for not less than 1mo nor more than 3mos; or (b)
a fine of more than 10,000 but not exceeding 20,000. Finding Judge Pichay
administratively liable, he is thus fined in the amount of 12,000 pesos.