MATEO DUMAYA, COMPLAINANT, VS. JUDGE TERTULO A. MENDOZA, MCTC, QUEZON-LICAB, NUEVA ECIJA

A judge should perform his official duties honestly, and with
impartiality and diligence. He shall
dispose of the court’s business promptly and decide cases within the required
periods.^[1]
Thus, a delay of five (5) months in the resolution of a motion for the issuance
of a writ of preliminary injunction in a forcible entry case runs counter to
the duty of a judicial magistrate to ensure speedy administration of justice.

Judge Tertulo Mendoza^[2] is
here charged with serious misconduct relative to the disposition of Civil Case
No. 379, entitled “Mateo Dumaya v. Sps. Teddy Fernandez and
Amelia Ventura” for
Forcible Entry with Prayer for Writ of Preliminary Mandatory Injunction.

In an administrative
complaint dated May 22, 1989, Mateo Dumaya alleges that on August 5, 1988, he
filed the aforesaid case, specifically praying therein the issuance of a writ
of preliminary injunction. On September
9, 1988, respondent judge ordered the parties to file their respective
memorandum and “thereafter, with or without such memorandum, the prayer
for the issuance of the writ of preliminary mandatory injunction will be deemed
submitted for resolution”^[3]

Respondent Judge, however, apparently forgot to act expeditiously
upon his own order, so much so that on February 24, 1989, or five (5) months
thereafter, the counsel for petitioner/complainant had to file a petition to
resolve his request for preliminary injunction.^[4]
Jolted into action, respondent Judge response was to issue an Order dated March
15, 1989 denying the issuance of the writ, “(a)fter considering the arguments
of both parties with regard to the issuance of writ of preliminary mandatory
injunction as contained in their pleadings.”^[5] (Emphasis
supplied.) Thus, this complaint alleging that the delay of respondent in
deciding the case unnecessarily prolonged the litigation, resulting to his
damage and prejudice.

The case was referred to the Office of the Court Administrator
(OCA) which found that “respondent evidently failed to satisfactorily
explain his failure to resolve the prayer (for the issuance of a writ of
preliminary injunction) after fifteen (15) days from September 9, 1988. (Annex “B”, Complaint).”^[6]
Hence, the OCA recommended a fine of P2,000.00 “for his failure to apply
the (1983) Rule on Summary Procedure in Civil Case 379.”^[7]

Deputy Court Administrator Reynaldo Suarez, further observed
that:

“It may be argued that respondent in the exercise of his sound
discretion had legal reasons to hold a full blown trial instead of deciding the
case based on the pleadings filed, but had he been more assiduous in the
performance of his obligation as a dispenser of justice the case should have
been deemed submitted after the filing of the answer, (the date however could
not be ascertained as the records do not disclose), which certainly could have
been done prior to the hearing scheduled on February 24, 1989. The action was simply a case of forcible
entry which involves only the issue of possession but it took respondent more
than one year to decide the case from the date it was filed. Clearly,
respondent failed to implement the Rule on Summary Procedure in this particular
case.“^[8]

Although we agree with the recommendation of the Office of the
Court Administrator that respondent judge should be sanctioned for the delay in
resolving the prayer for issuance of the writ of preliminary injunction, the
recommendation failed to consider that Civil Case No. 379 is not really a case
of forcible entry but one involving the issue of ownership over the subject
property, and therefore, the old Rule on Summary Procedure is not applicable.

Before its amendment in October, 1991 the Rule on Summary
Procedure was applicable to cases of forcible entry and unlawful detainer, except
where the question of ownership is involved.^[9] In
respondent judge’s decision he stated that the defendants in Civil Case No. 379
alleged as affirmative defense that they are the “owners of the house and
lot having bought the same for value
and good faith from the son of the plaintiff.”^[10] There being a question of ownership,
the old Rule on Summary Procedure is therefore, not applicable.

Be that as it may, Rule 70 of the Rules of Court mandates that in
forcible entry cases where a motion for the issuance of a writ of preliminary
injunction has been filed to restore the possessor in possession, the court
“shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof. “^[11]

Respondent’s excuse that he resolved complainant’s prayer for the
issuance of a writ of preliminary injunction before the filing of the instant
complaint is unavailing as he evidently failed to resolve the issue of whether
the writ should be issued or not within the period stated in the law nor to
explain the delay.

Respondent judge is administratively liable for the unreasonable
delay in the disposition of the said civil case. Nevertheless, we find the recommended penalty of P2,000.00 fine
to be too harsh a penalty to be imposed.

WHEREFORE, finding Judge Tertulo A. Mendoza to be
guilty of misconduct for unreasonable delay in resolving the matter of whether
or not to issue the writ of preliminary injunction within 30 days from the
filing of Civil Case No. 379 for Forcible Entry, the Court hereby FINES him
P1,000.00, with a warning that any or similar infraction shall be dealt with
more severely.

SO ORDERED.

Narvasa, C.J., (Chairman), Padilla, Regalado, and Puno, JJ.,
concur.

^[1]
Canon 3, Rule 3.05, Code of Judicial Conduct.

^[2]
Municipal Trial Court, Quezon-Licab, Nueva Ecija.

^[3]
Annex “B” of the Petition, Rollo,
p. 6.

^[4]
Annex “C” of the Petition, Rollo, p. 7.

^[5]
Annex
“1” of the Answer, Rollo, p. 14.

^[6]
Recommendation of the OCA, p. 1.

^[7]
Id., p. 2.

^[8]
Id.

^[9]
Sec. 1. A (1), 1983 Rule on Summary Procedure.

^[10]
Annex “4” of the Answer, Rollo, p. 17.

^[11]
Sec. 3 – Preliminary Injunction –

x x x

A possessor deprived of his possession
through forcible entry may within ten (10) days from the filing of the
complaint present a motion to secure from the competent court, in the action
for forcible entry, a writ of preliminary injunction to restore him in his
possession. The court shall decide the motion within thirty (30) days from the filing thereof. (Emphasis supplied)