ATTY. JEROME NORMAN L. TACORDA AND LETICIA RODRIGO-DUMDUM, COMPLAINANTS, VS. JUDGE PERLA V. CABRERA-FALLER, EXECUTIVE JUDGE, AND OPHELIA G. SULUEN, OFFICER-IN-CHARGE/LEGAL RESEA…

Tacorda versus Cabrera-Faller

The Case

This is an administrative complaint filed directly with the Supreme Court by Atty. Jerome Norman L. Tacorda and Leticia Rodrigo-Dumdum against Judge Perla V. Cabrera-Faller, the presiding judge of Branch 90 of the Regional Trial Court of Dasmariñas City, Cavite, and against Ophelia G. Suluen, the Officer-in-Charge and Legal Researcher of the same branch. The complainants charge the respondents with gross ignorance of the law, gross inefficiency, delay in the administration of justice, and impropriety, all arising from a civil case in which the complainants were the defendants. The case matters because it is a clean teaching vehicle on two points: what a complainant must allege to sustain a charge of gross ignorance of the law, and how the Court apportions administrative responsibility for delay between a judge and the legal researcher who serves her.

Procedural History

The complaint was filed directly with the Supreme Court as an administrative matter against a judge and a court employee. The Office of the Court Administrator evaluated the complaint and recommended that Judge Cabrera-Faller be held guilty of gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice and fined Twenty Thousand Pesos, that the charges against Suluen be dismissed for lack of merit, and that the charges of gross ignorance of the law and impropriety be dismissed for want of evidence. The Supreme Court, in an original administrative proceeding, reviewed the records and adopted the findings and recommendation of the Office of the Court Administrator.

Facts

The complaint traces its roots to a civil case for the recovery of a sum of money filed by the Salvilla plaintiffs against the spouses Edwin Dumdum and Leticia Rodrigo-Dumdum, one of the complainants here. The case was originally assigned to Judge Fernando L. Felicen of Branch 20 of the Regional Trial Court of Imus, Cavite. In October 2012, Judge Felicen required the parties to submit their pre-trial briefs and set the pre-trial for February 2013. In January 2013, however, Judge Felicen inhibited himself, and the case was re-raffled to the sala of Judge Cabrera-Faller in Dasmariñas City.

After receiving the records, Judge Cabrera-Faller set a clarificatory hearing for March 2013, which was moved to May 2013 because she attended a seminar. Because the last event in the court of origin was the setting of the pre-trial, the case was set for pre-trial in August 2013. It turned out, however, that the case had already been referred for mediation, so the trial court suspended the proceedings until the Mediator's Report was received in September 2013. Meanwhile, the plaintiffs belatedly filed their pre-trial brief in August 2013, prompting the spouses Dumdum, through their counsel Atty. Tacorda, to file a motion to expunge the plaintiffs' pre-trial brief in September 2013.

Almost two years passed. Only in July 2015 did Judge Cabrera-Faller deny the motion and set the case for pre-trial conference in October 2015, which was again rescheduled to November 2015 because she was hospitalized. The long delay in resolving the motion moved the complainants to file this administrative complaint. In their comment, the respondents insisted that there was no ignorance of the law, no gross inefficiency, and no delay, since the case had merely been transferred to them and had gone through mediation, which failed. They also suggested that the complaint was designed to disqualify Judge Cabrera-Faller from cases of Atty. Tacorda pending before her. In their reply, the complainants dismissed the comment as full of self-serving assertions and alibis.

Issues

• Whether or not Judge Cabrera-Faller and Suluen are administratively liable for gross ignorance of the law and impropriety.
• Whether or not Judge Cabrera-Faller is administratively liable for gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice for failing to resolve the motion to expunge for almost two years.
• Whether or not Suluen, the Officer-in-Charge and Legal Researcher, may be held administratively liable for the same delay.

Applicable Provisions

Section 15, Article VIII of the 1987 Constitution provides:

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 fixes the three-month period within which the trial court should have resolved the pending motion, and its breach is the measure of the delay.

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

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

This is the ethical standard of promptness that Judge Cabrera-Faller failed to meet.

Section 9, Rule 140 of the Revised Rules of Court, as quoted in the decision, treats 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 (1) nor more than three (3) months; or a fine of more than P10,000.00 but not exceeding P20,000.00.

This supplies the penalty range from which the Court drew the fine it imposed.

Ruling

On the first issue, the Court ruled that the charge of gross ignorance of the law must fail. To be liable, the error must be so gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith, and the acts complained of must not only be contrary to existing law and jurisprudence but must also be motivated by bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, and corruption. The complainants alleged none of these, and alleged no specific acts of impropriety, so both charges were dismissed.

On the second issue, the Court ruled against Judge Cabrera-Faller. Delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice, brings the court into disrepute, and erodes public faith in the Judiciary. The Court stressed that the Constitution requires lower courts to resolve matters within three months from submission, and that presiding judges must act promptly on all motions and interlocutory matters. Judge Cabrera-Faller failed to act on the motion to expunge for almost two years, and neither the re-raffling of the case nor the referral to mediation excused her inaction, especially since the Mediator's Report had been received in September 2013 yet the motion was denied only in July 2015. Failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency. The Court noted that she had already been dismissed from the service in a prior case, so the fine of Twenty Thousand Pesos was to be deducted from whatever amounts might still be due her.

On the third issue, the Court cleared Suluen. The responsibility to act on and resolve a pending matter or incident rests primarily on the judge, and a legal researcher cannot be held responsible for the delay incurred by the judge. The charges against her were dismissed for lack of merit.

Doctrine

First, gross ignorance of the law requires an error so gross and patent as to produce an inference of bad faith, coupled with allegations of bad faith, fraud, dishonesty, or corruption; absent these, the charge fails.

Second, failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency, and delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice. This rule is anchored on the three-month period for lower courts under Section 15, Article VIII of the Constitution and on Section 5, Canon 6 of the New Code of Judicial Conduct, which commands judges to perform all judicial duties efficiently, fairly, and with reasonable promptness.

Third, administrative responsibility for delay rests primarily on the judge, not on the legal researcher or court personnel who merely assist her.

Disposition

The Court found Judge Cabrera-Faller guilty of gross inefficiency and delay in the administration of justice and fined her Twenty Thousand Pesos, deductible from whatever amounts may still be due her, and dismissed the charges against Suluen for lack of merit.

Remember This

Memorize the line that failure to decide cases and other matters within the reglementary period constitutes gross inefficiency, and that delay in the disposition of cases amounts to a denial of justice. Examiners use this case to test the elements of gross ignorance of the law and to ask who bears administrative liability for a delayed motion, the judge or the legal researcher.