DOMINGO B. PANTIG, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE LAMBERTO A. DAING, JR., REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 46, JUDGE CARMELITA GUTIERREZ-FRUELDA, REGIONAL TRIAL COURT, BRANCH 43, JUDGE PEDR…

Pantig versus Daing

The Case

This is an administrative matter in which Domingo Pantig, a litigant who had won a long and bitterly contested fishpond case, filed an affidavit-complaint charging four judges with conduct unbecoming of officers of the court. The respondents were Judge Lamberto Daing, Junior, Judge Carmelita Gutierrez-Fruelda, Judge Pedro Sunga, Junior, and Judge Pamela Ann Maxino, all of Pampanga. The complainant alleged that their acts and omissions, taken together with the maneuverings of his opponents and their counsel, had frustrated the execution of a final and executory judgment in his favor. The case matters because it draws the line between a judge's erroneous but honest judicial act, which is not disciplinable, and a judge's unreasonable delay in resolving a pending incident, which is. It is the classic administrative-law illustration of the rule that a judge may not be disciplined for an error of judgment absent fraud, dishonesty or corruption, and of the constitutional duty to resolve matters within ninety days.

Procedural History

The complainant filed his affidavit-complaint directly with the Supreme Court as an administrative matter against the four judges. The respondent judges each filed their comments denying that their acts constituted conduct unbecoming of officers of the court. The Office of the Court Administrator reviewed the records and, through Deputy Court Administrator Jose Perez as approved by Court Administrator Presbitero Velasco, Junior, recommended that the charges against Judge Gutierrez-Fruelda, Judge Sunga and Judge Maxino be dismissed because the acts complained of pertained to the exercise of their judicial discretion, and that Judge Daing be fined two thousand pesos for his delay in resolving the motion to dismiss. The Supreme Court adopted the recommendations of the Office of the Court Administrator with modification, and decided the matter itself as an original administrative proceeding.

Facts

Domingo Pantig and his siblings were co-owners of a fishpond, Lot 1471, covering almost fourteen hectares. In 1969, ownership of that lot, together with two others, was awarded by original registration to Venancio Baltazar. The Pantigs challenged that title in an action for reconveyance. In April 1984, the Regional Trial Court of San Fernando, Pampanga, through Judge Felipe Kalalo, set aside the portion of the 1969 decision confirming Baltazar's title, confirmed the lot in equal undivided shares in favor of the Pantigs, and ordered Baltazar to surrender possession and to render, within sixty days, an accounting of the produce from 1969. That decision was affirmed by the Court of Appeals and by the Supreme Court, and it became final and executory in February 1997. Yet, despite a writ of execution and an original certificate of title in the complainant's name, the Baltazars remained in possession and rendered no accounting.

The complainant then pointed to specific acts of the four judges. Judge Daing, before whom an indirect contempt charge against the Baltazars' counsel was pending, left a motion to dismiss unresolved for almost two years despite the submission of the last pleading. Judge Sunga, as acting presiding judge, had earlier ordered the imprisonment of the Baltazars for contempt, but upon their urgent motion to reconsider he immediately recalled the warrants of arrest without giving the plaintiffs a chance to comment. Judge Gutierrez-Fruelda, to whom the case was reassigned after the presiding judge inhibited himself, issued an order setting aside the contempt order, accepting the accounting earlier rejected by another judge, and recalling the warrants of arrest. Judge Maxino, in a forcible entry case, gave due course to a motion for reconsideration that carried no notice of hearing, set it for hearing over the objection of the complainant's counsel, and then inhibited herself instead of deciding the case.

The respondent judges all denied the charges. Judge Daing admitted that, through sheer inadvertence and oversight due to voluminous records, he resolved the pending incident only much later, but insisted there was no malice or ill motive. Judge Gutierrez-Fruelda defended her order as well reasoned, noting that the accounting was personal to the deceased Venancio Baltazar and that the persons cited were not his substitutes or estate representatives. Judge Sunga argued that once an accounting was submitted, the court could not keep the Baltazars imprisoned until its correctness was proven. Judge Maxino explained that she set the defective motion for hearing to take a second hard look at her earlier ruling, and that she inhibited herself to avoid any appearance of impropriety after being accused of bias.

Issues

• Whether or not the acts of Judge Gutierrez-Fruelda, Judge Sunga and Judge Maxino in issuing the questioned orders constituted conduct unbecoming of officers of the court, warranting disciplinary action.
• Whether or not Judge Daing is administratively liable for his unreasonable delay in resolving the pending motion to dismiss.
• Whether or not the penalty of a fine in the amount of twenty thousand pesos is the proper sanction for Judge Daing's undue delay.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15, paragraph 1, Article 8 of the Constitution provides:

Section 15. (1) All cases or matters filed after the effectivity of this Constitution must be decided or resolved within twenty-four months from date of submission for the Supreme Court, and unless reduced by the Supreme Court, twelve months for all lower collegiate courts, and three months for all other lower courts.

This is the constitutional yardstick against which Judge Daing's nearly two-year delay in resolving the motion to dismiss is measured.

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

A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

This is the ethical duty breached by the delay, formerly found in Canon 3, Rule 3.05 of the old Code of Judicial Conduct.

Section 9 of Rule 140 of the Rules of Court, as discussed in the decision, classifies undue delay in rendering a decision or order as a less serious offense, punishable by suspension from office without salary and other benefits for not less than one nor more than three months, or a fine of more than ten thousand pesos but not exceeding twenty thousand pesos. This fixes the range of the penalty imposed on Judge Daing.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court dismissed the charges against Judge Gutierrez-Fruelda, Judge Sunga and Judge Maxino for lack of merit. It held that the acts complained of were not tainted with fraud, dishonesty, corruption or bad faith and thus were not subject to disciplinary action. The Court stated the governing rule: in the absence of fraud, dishonesty or corruption, the acts of a judge in his judicial capacity are not subject to disciplinary action, even though such acts may be erroneous. A judge may not be disciplined for an error of judgment unless there is proof that the error was made with a conscious and deliberate intent to commit an injustice. The Court found the questioned orders well reasoned and legally sound. Although the accounting was unsatisfactory to the Pantigs, one was nevertheless rendered, and so the order of the court was deemed complied with. If the complainant did not approve of the accounting, he should have filed an action questioning it instead of seeking to hold the Baltazars in contempt. An administrative complaint, the Court stressed, is not the appropriate course of action when judicial remedies such as a motion for reconsideration or an appeal are available to question an allegedly irregular judicial act.

On the second issue, the Court held Judge Daing administratively liable. He took almost two years to resolve the motion to dismiss, in violation of the constitutional requirement to resolve such matters within ninety days from the submission of the last pleading. His explanation of inadvertence and oversight due to voluminous records did not excuse him. Quoting its earlier ruling in Guintu versus Lucero, the Court declared:

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.

On the third issue, the Court fixed the penalty. Undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious offense under Section 9 of Rule 140, punishable by suspension or a fine of more than ten thousand pesos but not exceeding twenty thousand pesos. The Court meted out a fine of twenty thousand pesos as a reminder to all judges of their paramount duty to resolve cases with dispatch. It also observed that the execution of the 1984 decision had long been delayed, and reminded the judge handling the case not to condone the delaying tactics of the complainant's opponent.

Doctrine

First, a judge may not be disciplined for an error of judgment in the performance of official duties unless the error is made with a conscious and deliberate intent to commit an injustice; absent fraud, dishonesty or corruption, judicial acts, even if erroneous, are not subject to disciplinary action. Second, an administrative complaint is not the proper remedy to question an irregular or erroneous judicial act when judicial remedies such as a motion for reconsideration or an appeal are available. Third, delay in resolving motions and incidents beyond the ninety-day period fixed by Section 15, paragraph 1, Article 8 of the Constitution is not excusable and constitutes gross inefficiency, a violation of the duty under Canon 6, Section 5 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct to dispose of the court's business promptly. Fourth, undue delay in rendering a decision or order is a less serious offense under Section 9 of Rule 140, punishable by suspension of one to three months or a fine of more than ten thousand pesos but not exceeding twenty thousand pesos.

Disposition

Judge Lamberto Daing was ordered to pay a fine of twenty thousand pesos and warned that a repetition of the same or similar acts would be dealt with more severely, while the charge of conduct unbecoming of officers of the court against Judge Carmelita Gutierrez-Fruelda, Judge Pedro Sunga and Judge Pamela Ann Maxino was dismissed for lack of merit.

Remember This

Memorize the line: absent fraud, dishonesty or corruption, a judge's erroneous judicial act is not disciplinable, but delay beyond ninety days is gross inefficiency. Examiners use this case to test the distinction between an error of judgment and administrative liability, and to test the penalty for undue delay under Rule 140.