ATTY. EDDIE U. TAMONDONG, PETITIONER, V. JUDGE EMMANUEL P. PASAL, PRESIDING JUDGE, BRANCH 38, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, CAGAYAN DE ORO CITY, RESPONDENT.

Tamondong versus Pasal

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Atty. Eddie Tamondong against Judge Emmanuel Pasal, the presiding judge of a Regional Trial Court branch in Cagayan de Oro City. The complaint charges the judge with gross ignorance of the law, gross incompetence, gross inefficiency, and neglect of duty. It matters for two reasons. First, it draws the line between a judge's erroneous judicial acts, which are corrected by appeal or certiorari and not by discipline, and a judge's unexplained delay in resolving a pending motion, which is a disciplinable offense. Second, it reminds every reviewee that the reglementary periods for resolving motions are mandatory and that a judge cannot extend them on his own.

Procedural History

The case began in the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Opol, Misamis Oriental, where the heirs of Enrique Abada sued Henmar Development Property, Inc., the client of Atty. Tamondong, for quieting of title, recovery of possession, annulment of a transfer certificate of title, and annulment of an extrajudicial settlement with sale. Henmar moved to dismiss on grounds of lack of jurisdiction over its person, lack of jurisdiction over the subject matter and improper venue, and prescription and laches. The trial court denied the motion, and it denied reconsideration as well.

Henmar then filed a petition for certiorari, prohibition, and injunction before the Regional Trial Court of Cagayan de Oro City, raffled to the branch presided by Judge Pasal. Judge Pasal dismissed the petition for lack of merit. Henmar moved for reconsideration, and the judge submitted it for resolution. More than six months passed without a resolution, so Atty. Tamondong filed this administrative complaint. The Office of the Court Administrator recommended that the complaint be re-docketed as a regular administrative matter, that the judge be found guilty of gross inefficiency and fined 2,000 pesos, and that the charge of gross ignorance of the law be dismissed. The Supreme Court re-docketed the complaint, and the parties agreed to submit it for resolution based on the pleadings. The case therefore reached the Court as an original administrative matter, not as an appeal.

Facts

In June 2012, the heirs of Enrique Abada filed a complaint before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities of Opol against Henmar Development Property, Inc. Henmar, through Atty. Tamondong, filed an omnibus motion seeking dismissal on three grounds: lack of jurisdiction over its person because summons had been served on the clerical staff of another corporation, lack of jurisdiction over the subject property because the land is in Cagayan de Oro City and not in Opol, and prescription. The trial court denied the motion and later denied reconsideration.

Henmar elevated the matter to the Regional Trial Court through a petition for certiorari and prohibition. Judge Pasal dismissed the petition. He reasoned that the trial court acted within its jurisdiction in finding summons validly served, that a trial was needed to determine the political boundaries of Opol because the title and decree referred to a cadastral survey made before the municipality existed, and that the action had not prescribed because the plaintiffs were allegedly in possession until 2008 and the complaint was filed in 2012.

Henmar filed a motion for reconsideration. Judge Pasal issued an order submitting it for resolution. The thirty-day period expired, yet the motion remained unresolved for more than six months. Hence the administrative complaint, in which Atty. Tamondong also alleged that the judge was unduly favoring the adverse party. The judge answered that his resolution was self-explanatory, that the act complained of was judicial in nature, and that the matter had already been elevated to the Court of Appeals. He offered no explanation for the delay.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Pasal is administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence for dismissing the petition for certiorari and prohibition.
• Whether or not Judge Pasal is administratively liable for gross inefficiency and neglect of duty for failing to resolve the motion for reconsideration within the reglementary period.

Applicable Provisions

Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct for the Philippine Judiciary provides:

Judges shall perform all judicial duties, including the delivery of reserved decisions, efficiently, fairly and with reasonable promptness.

This is the ethical standard that anchors the charge of delay against the judge.

Rule 37, Section 4 of the Rules of Court provides:

A motion for new trial or reconsideration shall be resolved within thirty (30) days from the time it is submitted for resolution.

This fixed period is the measure of the judge's compliance, and it is the provision he violated.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that there is no merit in the charge of gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence. The resolution dismissing the petition was issued in the exercise of the judge's adjudicative functions. Any error he may have committed cannot be corrected through administrative proceedings but must be assailed through judicial remedies. The jurisdictional questions raised by Atty. Tamondong are judicial matters to be decided by the proper reviewing court, not by the Office of the Court Administrator. The Court stressed that an administrative complaint is not the appropriate remedy for every aberrant or irregular act of a judge where a judicial remedy exists and is available, and that a judge cannot be civilly, criminally, or administratively liable for official acts, no matter how erroneous, provided he acts in good faith. Since Atty. Tamondong had already appealed to the Court of Appeals and had not exhausted judicial remedies nor shown an entry of judgment, the Court could not inquire into the judge's administrative liability. The imputation of bias was also rejected, because bias and partiality are never presumed and bad faith cannot be inferred merely because the judgment is adverse to a party.

On the second issue, the Court found the judge administratively liable for undue delay. The motion for reconsideration was submitted for resolution, and the thirty-day period expired on March 26, 2014. The judge resolved it only on June 17, 2014, one hundred thirteen days later, without any explanation. The Court held that if the judge could not comply, he should have asked the Court for a reasonable extension, because a judge cannot by himself prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Under the amendments to Rule 140, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious charge. Considering his seven years of continuous service and his eventual resolution of the motion, the Court imposed a fine of 2,000 pesos.

Doctrine

First, acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action. A judge is not administratively liable for his official acts, however erroneous, provided he acts in good faith. Errors of judgment are corrected through the ordinary and extraordinary judicial remedies, and resort to and exhaustion of those remedies, plus entry of judgment, are prerequisites to any administrative, civil, or criminal action against the judge.

Second, the periods fixed by the Rules are mandatory. Under Rule 37, Section 4, a motion for reconsideration must be resolved within thirty days from submission, and under Canon 6, Section 5, judges must perform their duties with reasonable promptness. A judge who cannot comply must request an extension from the Court; he cannot grant himself one. Unexplained delay is undue delay and is a less serious charge under Rule 140, punishable by suspension or a fine.

Disposition

The administrative complaint for gross ignorance of the law and gross incompetence was dismissed for being judicial in nature, but Judge Pasal was found guilty of undue delay in resolving the motion for reconsideration and fined 2,000 pesos.

Remember This

Memorize the line that a judge's erroneous judicial acts are corrected by appeal, not by administrative complaint, but his unexplained delay in resolving a motion is disciplined. Examiners use this case to test the boundary between judicial error and administrative liability, and to test the mandatory thirty-day period for resolving motions for reconsideration.