VIDALA SACEDA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE GERARDO E. GESTOPA, JR., ACTING PRESIDING JUDGE, MUNICIPAL TRIAL COURT IN CITIES, CEBU CITY, BRANCH 4, RESPONDENT.

Saceda versus Gestopa

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed by Vidala Saceda against Judge Gerardo E. Gestopa, Jr., then acting presiding judge of the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City, Branch 4. The complainant was the plaintiff in an ejectment case pending before the respondent's sala, and she charged him with failing to decide that case within the period fixed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. The case matters because it fixes the standard for judicial promptness: a judge may not extend his own deadline, and failure to decide even a single case on time, without an extension granted by the Supreme Court, is gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.

Procedural History

The complaint was referred by the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas to the Office of the Court Administrator, which received the referral in September 1998, pursuant to the Ombudsman Act of 1989. The respondent was asked to comment, and he filed his comment. The Office of the Court Administrator then submitted its recommendation to the Supreme Court, proposing a fine of 5,000 pesos with a warning. The matter reached the Supreme Court as an administrative matter, and the Court resolved it in a decision promulgated in December 2001.

Facts

Vidala Saceda filed an ejectment case against Norberto and Juanito Baguio before the Municipal Trial Court in Cities, Cebu City, Branch 4, presided over by the respondent judge. She filed her position paper in January 1997. She received a copy of Norberto's position paper on January 23, 1997, and a copy of Juanito's position paper on February 5, 1997. The trial court was thus given the parties' position papers at around that time.

In August 1997, the complainant filed a motion for judgment based on the position papers, invoking Section 10 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. When no decision came, she filed a second motion for judgment, this time based on Section 11 of Rule 70 of the Revised Rules of Court, which is substantially the same as Section 10 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure. Still no decision was rendered. In June 1998, she filed her complaint with the Office of the Ombudsman for the Visayas.

In his comment, the respondent merely stated that he was no longer the judge designate of Branch 4 and that the ejectment case had been transferred to Branch 5, where Judge Oscar Andrino rendered a decision in March 2000. He said nothing about his own role in the delay. The Court noted that the respondent left Branch 4 in January 1998, giving him nearly a year, from February 1997, to decide the case. That period of eleven months exceeded the thirty-day period required by summary procedure, and the respondent offered no explanation for the delay.

Issues

• Whether or not the respondent judge failed to decide the ejectment case within the period required by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure.
• Whether or not such failure constitutes gross inefficiency meriting administrative sanction.
• Whether or not the penalty recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator is the correct penalty under the Rules of Court.

Applicable Provisions

Section 10 of the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure provides:

Section 10. Rendition of judgment. Within thirty days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers, or the expiration of the period for filing the same, the court shall render judgment.

This fixes the deadline the respondent violated, since ejectment cases are covered by summary procedure and the last position paper was received in February 1997.

Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct provides:

Rule 3.05. A judge shall dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods.

This is the standard of conduct the respondent failed to meet, and the Court treats it as binding on every member of the judiciary.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court held that the respondent failed to decide the case within the required period. Ejectment cases are governed by the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, which requires judgment within thirty days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers. From February 1997, when all position papers were received, to January 1998, when the respondent left Branch 4, eleven months passed without a decision. The Court found the respondent's silence on his own role in the delay glaring, and viewed his failure to even mention the matter as a vain attempt to brush aside the issue, if not to mislead the Court.

On the second issue, the Court held that the failure constitutes gross inefficiency. While the Court acknowledged the heavy caseload of first level courts and has allowed reasonable extensions in past cases, it stressed that such extensions must first be requested from the Supreme Court. A judge cannot by himself choose to prolong the period for deciding cases beyond that authorized by law. Without an order of extension, failure to decide even a single case within the required period constitutes gross inefficiency that merits administrative sanction.

On the third issue, the Court agreed that a fine must be imposed but rejected the amount recommended by the Office of the Court Administrator. Under Rule 140, undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious charge, punishable by suspension from office or a fine of not less than 10,000 pesos but not more than 19,999 pesos. Constrained by the Rules, the Court imposed a fine of 10,000 pesos.

Doctrine

A judge must dispose of the court's business promptly and decide cases within the required periods, as Rule 3.05 of the Code of Judicial Conduct commands. Ejectment cases fall under the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, whose Section 10 requires judgment within thirty days after receipt of the last affidavits and position papers. A judge cannot extend this period on his own authority; any extension must first be requested from and granted by the Supreme Court. Without such an order, failure to decide even a single case within the required period is gross inefficiency meriting administrative sanction. Under Rule 140, undue delay in rendering a decision is a less serious charge punishable by suspension or a fine of not less than 10,000 pesos but not more than 19,999 pesos.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Gerardo E. Gestopa, Jr. guilty of gross inefficiency and ordered him to pay a fine of 10,000 pesos, with a warning that a repetition of the same or a similar offense will be dealt with more severely.

Remember This

The line worth memorizing is that a judge cannot by himself prolong the period for deciding cases, and failure to decide even one case on time without a Supreme Court extension is gross inefficiency. Examiners use this case on judicial ethics and the Revised Rule on Summary Procedure, especially the thirty-day period for ejectment cases and the Rule 140 penalty for undue delay.