JOSEFA PERNEA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE JUAN MONTECILLO, CFI, BRANCH III, GUMACA, QUEZON, RESPONDENT.

For failure to resolve the motion of the complainant and dismissal
of her appeal, respondent Judge Juan Monte­cillo of the Court of First Instance
of Quezon, Branch III at Gumaca, was charged of grave abuse of authority and
ignorance of the law.

Upon the records, it appears that respondent judge rendered a
decision dated June 28, 1973, in Civil Case No. 715-G entitled “Josefa
Pernea, et al., vs. Filemon Pernea, et al.”^[1]
The judgment adjudicated the subject property in favor of the defendants,
Filemon Pernea, et al.

Herein complainant Josefa Pernea, as plaintiff in said Civil
Case, filed on July 20, 1973 her notice of appeal from the aforesaid decision
of respondent judge,^[2]
having admittedly received the decision on July 2, 1973.^[3]
On the same date, complainant also filed a motion to appeal as pauper and for
an extension of sixty (60) days from August 1, 1973 within which to file the
record on appeal.  Because of the
objection of the defendants alleging that complainant is a real property owner,
respondent judge issued an order,^[4]
holding in abeyance the resolution of the complainant’s motion, and directed
the Fiscal’s Office of Gumaca, Quezon, to investigate whether or not a criminal
charge may be filed against the erring public official concerned in view of the
two (2) conflicting certifications issued by the Municipal Treasurer of
Catanauan, Quezon.  One certification^[5]
attested that complainant Josefa Pernea has not declared nor registered real
property in the Municipality of Catanauan, Quezon, while the other
certification,^[6]
declared that spouses Gregorio Puertollano and Josefa Pernea are the regis­tered
owners of real property in the said municipality.

On October 8, 1973, respondent judge denied a motion filed by
herein complainant to secure the services of another lawyer for a period of
thirty (30) days, in view of the withdrawal of her former lawyer.^[7]
In the order of denial, respondent judge further stated that “the notice
of appeal the plaintiffs were intending to submit is hereby considered filed
out of time until the claim of plaintiff Josefa Pernea that she is a property
owner is duly verified by this Court.”

Meanwhile, the investigation report^[8]
of the Fiscal’s Office recommended that no action could be taken against herein
complainant and the Asst. Municipal Treasurer of Catanauan, Quezon because the
registered real property in the names of spouses Gregorio Puertollano and
Josefa Pernea is a capital property of complainant’s husband, the same having
been acquired when he was still single.

On October 31, 1973, respondent judge issued an order^[9]
that no criminal liability was incurred in the issuance of a certification for
pauper litigant and directed that a writ of execution be issued to enforce the
decision of June 28, 1973 “inasmuch as the plain­tiffs’ notice to appeal
is considered filed out of time.”

There is nothing in the records showing the court’s action upon
the motion to appeal as pauper and for extension of time to file record on
appeal, whether it was granted or denied.

It is indeed difficult to comprehend how respondent judge under
the circumstances of record, could have lost sight of his obligation to resolve
the complainant’s motion and declare the notice of appeal filed out of
time.  There is no doubt, as the records
disclose that the notice of appeal and the motion to litigate as pauper and for
extension of time to file record on appeal were timely filed on July 20, 1973,
considering that complainant received on July 2, 1973, a copy of the decision
of June 28, 1973.  So that, specifically,
the reglementary period of thirty (30) days within which to perfect appeal
expired on August 1, 1973.  Corollarily,
since the motion was timely filed within the thirty (30) day reglementary
period for perfecting the appeal, “the respondent court was in duty bound
to decide and resolve x x x and it is unfair for it to declare the judgment
rendered in the case final and executory without first complying with its duty
to resolve and decide the petitions for exten­sion of time to perfect the
appeal x x x.”^[10]

In Reyes vs. Sta. Maria,^[11]
the Supreme Court said:

“A motion to be allowed to appeal as pauper and to extend the
period for filing the record on appeal must be filed within the 30-day
reglementary period for per­fecting the appeal. 
It should be heard and resolved promptly, or before the lapse of said
period, so as to apprise the appel­lant whether or not his obligation to file
the record on appeal or the appeal bond within the said period is dispensed
with (Semira vs. Enriquez, 88 Phil. 228, 231;
Sec. 1, Rule 135, Rules of Court). 
The parties or their attorneys should be immediately notified of the
orders issued on the matter so that they may avail them­selves of the proper
remedy if it is denied.”

While it may be argued that litigants are not justi­fied, much
less have the right to take for granted that their motions would be favorably
acted upon, nevertheless, litigants deserve and are entitled to be notified of
the court’s action on any motion they submit for the reso­lution of the
court.  Their interest in submitting
motion, precisely lies upon its adjudication, irrespective of the Court’s
action, whether it be a denial or a grant thereof.  On the other hand, “the courts are bound
to act – in proper cases – on all motions with sufficient dispatch necessary to
allow the parties to avail themselves of proper remedies.  This is implied in the mandate that ‘justice
shall be impartially administered without unnecessary delay.'”^[12]

In the instant case, respondent judge, not only was oblivious of
his obligation and bounden duty to act or pass upon any motion with reasonable
celerity and promptness, but he failed and did not act upon the complainant’s
motion.  Worse, the respondent judge
declared that the notice of appeal was filed out of time, contrary to what
appears on the records.  Thus, he is
found guilty of gross negligence and incompetence in not resolving the pending
motion herein and in declaring that the notice of appeal was filed out of
time.  Nonetheless, it may be stated in
passing that the appeal should be dismissed and can no longer be reinstated.

Since no action was taken on complainant’s motion, and the 30-day
period for perfecting the appeal had expired, without a record on appeal having
been filed, the decision in Civil Case No. 715-G had become final and
executory, notwithstanding the fact that complainant had fixed and requested
the period of sixty (60) days in her motion for extension to begin from August
1, 1973, which, by correct computation expired on September 30, 1973, but she
failed to file her record on appeal within the period so requested.  As of October 31, 1973, when respondent judge
issued the writ of execution, the judg­ment had long become final and executory
and the pre­vailing party, as a matter of right, is entitled to the writ of
execution, its issuance being the court’s minis­terial duty.

WHEREFORE, IN VIEW OF THE FOREGOING, respondent
Judge Juan Montecillo is found guilty of gross negligence and incompetence, and
hereby fined an amount equivalent to three (3) months salary with a stern
warning that a repetition of similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Teehankee, Acting C.J., Makasiar, Fernandez, and Melencio-Herrera, JJ., concur.

^[1]
Rollo, p. 18.

^[2]
Ibid., p. 23-a.

^[3]
Complaint, rollo, p. 5.

^[4]
Rollo, p. 28.

^[5]
Ibid., p. 23.

^[6]
Ibid., p. 27.

^[7]
Ibid., p. 32.

^[8]
Ibid., pp. 33-35.

^[9]
Ibid., p. 38.

^[10]
Semira vs. Enriquez, 88 Phil. 228, 230, quoting from resolution of March
23, 1950 in 47 O.G., 4638, 4640.

^[11]
48 SCRA 1.

^[12]
Semira vs. Enriquez, supra; citing Sec. 1, Rule 124 of the
Old Rules of Court, now Sec. 1, Rule
135, Revised Rules of Court.